Re: Draft ForCES Meeting Minutes, IETF 55

[Patrick Droz <[e-mail]>]

David,

sorry I was on vacation and did not have e-mail access.
Thanks for doing this.

Regards,
Patrick

Putzolu, David wrote:
> All,
>
> Please find below the draft minutes for the ForCES
> meeting at IETF 55.  Please send any corrections or
> comments to the list or to myself or Patrick by
> Thursday, Dec 12.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> --- cut here ---
>
> Forwarding and Control Element Separation (forces)
>
> Monday, November 18 at 0900-1130
> ==================================
>
> CHAIRS: Patrick Droz <[e-mail]>
>         David Putzolu <[e-mail]>
>
> Scribe: George Jones <[e-mail]>
>
> Agenda bashing: nothing changed
>
> Completed Last Calls
>
>   draft-ietf-forces-framework-03.txt
>   draft-ietf-forces-requirements-07.txt
>   draft-ietf-forces-netlink-03.txt
>
> Discussion of draft-ietf-yang-model-01
>
>   - authors, history presented
>   - motivation
>     FE == Forwarding Element
>     CE == Control Element
>     * FE tells CE capabilities
>     * FE tells CE current config
>     * CE tells FE desired state
>   - what is in the model
>     * FE block (abstract base class)
>     * Block library (Forwarding, QoS, filters, etc.)
>     * Example FE Blocks
>     * FE stage and directed graph
>     * Two approaches in graph modeling
>     * Topological (DiffServ)
>       + No info carried forward
>     * Topological (DiffServ) vs. Encoded State (QDDIM model)
>       + Explicit info (preamble) carried forward to subsequent
>         stages
>   - open issues
>     * Data modeling language: representation
>       + SMI/SPPI/ASN.1/XML/UML ?
>     * Topological vs. Encoded State approach
>     * Modeling of actual functions
>       + identify minimal categories/set of functions
>       + model for each one
>   - next steps
>     * WG document
>     * Data modeling language
>     * define small set of functions
>
>
> Q: Is your intent to specify the way that the FE and CE
>    communicate ?  If so, it's very important to get right.
> A: yes.
>
> Q: (statement) Topological model is easier to reason about.
> A: We can take it on a case-by case basis.
>
> Q: (statement) We need to be aware that we don't just want to
>    encode the a snapshot of the current state of the world
> A: We need help from the chairs to avoid this.
>
> Chair: show of hands, who's read ?
> Answer: not enough.  Need more discussion to accept as a WG model.
>         Abstract, not easy to discuss.
>
> Chair: We'd like people to start submitting actual protocol drafts.
>        Easier to actually talk about/discuss.
>
> Action: model will not be WG document yet.
>
> Status of other drafts
>
> Closing:
>   Do protocol submissions.
>
> End of meeting.
>
>


--
   Dr. Patrick Droz                     | [e-mail]
   IBM Zurich Research Laboratory       | http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~dro
   Saumerstrasse 4                      | Tel. [phone] CH-8803
   Rueschlikon/Switzerland              | Fax. [phone]