Re: [i2rs] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14: (with DISCUSS)

Qin Wu <> Thu, 10 September 2020 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA47C3A0B80; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f6w1hRRUuv4U; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EA2E3A0B38; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2F80C4C694B6442CE3F8; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:02:28 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:02:28 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:02:27 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 22:02:26 +0800
From: Qin Wu <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>, "" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, 'Martin Vigoureux' <>
Thread-Topic: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AdaHegnmSxEvJc0lSjWXXTahuAlbgA==
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:02:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:02:43 -0000

Hi, Magnus and Rob:
Thanks to Sue for helping reaching IEEE community, we have received IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-15
and address them in v-17 and v-18
The latest update is available at:
Let us know if you can clear the DISCUSS now, thanks.

-Qin (on behalf of authors)
发件人: Magnus Westerlund [] 
发送时间: 2020年7月10日 1:25
主题: RE: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14: (with DISCUSS)


Sue, I raised a discuss on this just to ensure that IESG would discuss the 
issue today. I raised it based on the Glenn Parsons request on the IEEE-IETF 
mailing list and that there where apparently some confusion.

So I don't really know which failures did occur in this case. I think it would 
be good to analyze it. I would suspect a combination of issues. Likely 
including that turn over among AD makes people loose history and process.

>From my personal perspective, I as AD would appreciate a WG chairs that reach 
out to the AD when they thing there might be need for coordination with 
external bodies. I understand that for this document they might not be as 


Magnus Westerlund

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan Hares <>
> Sent: den 9 juli 2020 16:28
> To: Magnus Westerlund <>om>; 'The IESG'
> <>
> Cc:;;
> Subject: RE: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-
> topology-14: (with DISCUSS)
> Magnus:
> Thank you for raising this process discuss.
> The authors and I strong desire the I2RS model to be a NM management
> model that imports the appropriate things from IEEE.
> I have two points you should add to your process discuss:
> 1) Where did the coordination instructions change for the WG chair?
> In the midst of the discussion within the IESG would you please consider how
> to provide better instructions for the lowly chair and authors on this 
> topic.   In
> the past, the IESG sent information to IEEE-IETF.    (I was scribe during 
> the
> first meeting of the IETF-IESG over the TRILL issue).   I was the TRILL 
> chair for
> the last years of the TRILL WGs life.   I have participated in the IEEE 
> 802.1 and
> IETF during the TRILL issue when we were trying to resolve a common
> management for TRILL between IEEE and IETF.   During that time, it was
> important that a few focused voices discussed issues regarding TRILL.  It
> would help me to understand when this transitioned to chairs being able to
> send requests to the IEEE-IETF coordination list.
> We also asked for numerous reviews by Yang Doctors who were
> knowledgeable regarding IETF.  I delayed publication request several times
> until it appeared all issues were resolved.   This "sudden" surprise is 
> indeed
> amazing since the L2 is 5 years old.  It is older than the 8021Qcp-2018 
> official
> models.
> 2) Why are I2RS topology models are not seen as Network Management by
> the IEEE.
> These are virtual topology models used by open source platforms for
> management.  (E.g. Open Daylight).
> Sue
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker []
> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:44 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc:;;
> Subject: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-
> topology-14: (with DISCUSS)
> Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14: Discuss
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this 
> introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is a process discuss.
> There apparently have been a failure to coordinate this with IEEE per
> discussion on the IETF-IEEE mailing list.
> Glenn Parsons requested that this was deferred to give IEEE time to review 
> it
> at their plenary next week. I think this time should be given before 
> approving
> this document.