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

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

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 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/NtnhmhouhLbSv6nU2xX_wFw0to8/
and address them in v-17 and v-18
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/NzDVHfaWhSgt167AXf-ay_pqRH8/
The latest update is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology/
Let us know if you can clear the DISCUSS now, thanks.

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

Hi,

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 
clear.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> Sent: den 9 juli 2020 16:28
> To: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>; 'The IESG'
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> 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 [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:44 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>