Re: [Casm] Possible charter goals and milestones

["Liushucheng (Will)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit and all,

Thanks for your guidance. After offline discussions among all the proponents, we changed the BoF to non-WG forming in the wiki.  https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/


We also added the purpose of the BoF in the description:
The purpose of the BoF is to gather a common set of requirements from a larger set of operators and, if needed, possible protocol work milestones and scope.

I’m copying the updated version below for your convenience.

--start—

Coordinated Address Space Management (CASM)

  *   Description: Organizations use IP Address Space Management (IPAM) tools to manage their IP address space, often with proprietary database and interfaces. This work intends to evolve IPAM into standardized interfaces for coordinated management of IP addresses, including SDN/NFV networks and other forms of virtualization. Use cases include dynamic allocation and release of IP addresses and prefixes based on usage (reallocation in case of no more in use) and/or user intent (for specific services). The purpose of the BoF is to gather a common set of requirements from a larger set of operators and, if needed, possible protocol work milestones and scope.

  *   Agenda
     *   Problem statement and use cases
     *   Requirements and framework
     *   Possible charter goals and milestones
     *   Next steps
  *   Status: non-WG Forming
  *   Responsible AD: OPS (Benoit Claise, Joel Jaeggli, Warren Kumari)
  *   BoF proponents: Chongfeng Xie(China Telecom), Rakesh Kumar (Juniper), Ying Cheng(China Unicom), Will Liu(Huawei)
  *   BoF chairs: TBD
  *   Number of people expected to attend: 100
  *   Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 1.5 hours
  *   Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): intarea, opsawg, anima, supa, dhc, nfvrg
  *   Mailing List: ​​https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm>
  *   Draft charter: TBD
  *   Relevant drafts:
     *   ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-casm-problem-and-use-cases<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-casm-problem-and-use-cases>
     *   ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-ps-centralized-address-management<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-ps-centralized-address-management>
     *   ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-casm-requirements-and-framework<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-casm-requirements-and-framework>
     *   ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-arch<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-arch>
     *   ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-yang<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-yang>

--end--

Regards,
Will (LIU Shucheng)

From: CASM [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:37 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Casm] Possible charter goals and milestones

Dear all,

"Possible charter goals and milestones" is mentioned in the BoF Wiki, but I fail to see which deliverables you have in mind, next to the framework?
Is/are your deliverable(s) based on draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-yang, so (a) YANG module(s) that would specify the interface and facilitate the automation?
The BoF WIKI mentions "WG forming", but without a clear view on those deliverables, that's difficult.

Tough question: If the solution is this YANG module, based on draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-arch, should we jump directly to the solution? In other words, what is the BoF added value? Note: I thought that those two drafts received some (mild) support in OPSAWG already in IETF 94.

If one of your deliverables is about the DHCP protocol, then I hope we all agree that it should be done in the dhc WG.

Regards, Benoit