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

Thanks Tom for feedback and clarification, not actually familiar with IEEE process and just thought IEEE 802.1 is assigned to do the formal job. Maybe I missed anything and will check my AD.
If you have any suggestion, please also let us know, thanks!

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] 
发送时间: 2020年9月11日 0:12
收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>; Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; shares@ndzh.com
抄送: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org; 'Martin Vigoureux' <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
主题: Re: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14: (with DISCUSS)

From: i2rs <i2rs-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Sent: 10 September 2020 15:02

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

<tp>
Well yes, but as the chain of e-mails makes clear this is informal feedback from an individual in IEEE 802.1 YANGsters group and not a formal liaison response (which I expect is fine).  My sense is that the IEEE has a somewhat different view of Bridge ID and VLAN ID to that which I held beforehand from IETF I-D and will look at other uses of VLAN ID, in particular, in a different light as a result.  Perhaps it is time I re-read 802.1Q!

Tom Petch

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:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com]
发送时间: 2020年7月10日 1:25
收件人: shares@ndzh.com; iesg@ietf.org
抄送: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology@ietf.org; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org
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 <shares@ndzh.com>
> Sent: den 9 juli 2020 16:28
> To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>; 'The IESG'
> <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology@ietf.org; 
> i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org
> 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:noreply@ietf.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:44 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology@ietf.org; 
> i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org
> 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-topol
> ogy/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs