Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports?

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Acee:

 

I think we are still confused. The different streams (i2RS/config) that may
or may not be merged (under debate).  Both i2rs/config streams had open
calls at IETF 90 for contributions and collaborators based on pre-IETF 90
work. On that portion of topic after this message, let's declare rat hole.  

 

My key question is still unanswered:  "Do I understand is that you as
co-chair of OSPF are stating you recommend not reading or reviewing the I2RS
OSPF drafts I and my-authors created for the I2RS stream and instead you
recommend figuring out if your existing configuration drafts fit I2RS?"  I
appreciate your bluntness so I can figure where to put our next efforts in
I2RS.  

 

Thank you, 

 

Sue 

 

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 7:37 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'Jeffrey Haas'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status
reports?

 

 

 

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, September 27, 2014 at 7:22 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status
reports?

 

Acee: 

 

Thank you for the pointer to the message in ISIS.  Perhaps since Chris just
declared consensus Friday the 9/19/14 that he will get around to posting
these drafts.

 

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that these drafts have not been
previously posted. 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yeung-netmod-ospf/

 

Acee - my message indicates the isis drafts had not been posted as:
draft-isis-yang-isis-cfg, and that draft-yeung-netmod-ospf was not the ospf
web page or netmod web page.   It is a polite indication between chairs that
if this is important .. you might want to catch up with your housekeeping.  

 

 

To be clear, I understand from your work that you are declaring consensus on
the yang models for OSPF model based on your knowledge of the private
multi-vendor design team.  

 

As you noted, both the presentations at IETF 90 called for participation.
These design teams are much less private than the OSPF/ISIS IM/DM drafts you
submitted yesterday. 

 

Acee - this is simply not true.  See the above information - it had the same
level of call at IETF 90.  

 

You are stating at the OSPF chair that those models have the front seat in
looking at the I2RS models without reading any of the I2RS IM/DM drafts we
have prepared.

 

The work on the OSPF and ISIS YANG models pre-dated the drafts you have
submitted yesterday by quite some time so I don't see we should consider
replacing it.    

 

Acee - I'm afraid you rare confusing the I2RS work with the configuration
work.  Only on 9/19/14 at a yang 1.1 interim (no standing with I2RS), was
there a suggestion these might work.   

 

 Please confirm that I understand this message so that I can determine the
next steps to take with these drafts.

 

Your next step should be to review the OSPF/ISIS drafts. 

 

Thanks,A

Acee 

 

 

 

 

Sue 

 

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 6:32 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'Jeffrey Haas'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status
reports

 

 

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, September 27, 2014 at 6:16 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status
reports?

 

Acee:

 

I'm confused by this email thread because these slides state the authors are
looking for co-authors for netmod drafts. Are you as the co-chair of OSPF
declaring consensus on the OSPF yang model draft? 

 

Yes - and there are now multi-vendor design teams in place. 

 

 

Would you point me to the email that indicates the WG Adoption call and
conclusion?

 

We haven't adopted yet in OSPF. ISIS adoption is in progress. I already
searched the proceedings for the presentations. Note that the list archives
offer a search capability. Anyway, here is the ISIS message:

 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg/current/msg03679.html

 

 

 

The drafts I suggested are I2RS drafts for the I2RS datastore that allow it
to configure the routing agent directly. The only way these two drafts
interact is if the option 4 proposed by the Yang 1.1 interim (created
9/19/14) works.  It is unclear if it will work - that's under discussion.
There is no reason to stop the I2RS DM/IM models required by I2RS charter
work while we find out if option 4 works. 

 

And out of curiosity, if we are now considering option 4 why don't you want
more input and collaboration that provides insight from people who looked at
the OSPF for the I2RS use that option 4 suggests?  We have complete IM and
DM (yang compiled) for the configuration we thought was necessary for I2RS
if the agent talked directly to the routing process (the assumption of all
I2RS with unique data store).  

 

Please review the OSPF and ISIS drafts with respect to option 4.

 

Thanks,

Acee 

 

 

 

 

 

Sue 

 

PS - the ISIS Draft is not listed as approved or listed on the ISIS mail
list as approved. It has not been updated since 6/27/14.  If you believe it
should be listed that way, you might want to talk to the ISIS co-chairs. 

 

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 5:06 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'Jeffrey Haas'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status
reports?

 

Sue: 

 

Did you look at the archives for the OSPF and ISIS WGs? Both drafts were
presented at IETF 90 in Toronto. We intend to cross review the OSPF YANG
model in both the netmod and OSPF WGs. The ISIS YANG Model is already being
accepted as an ISIS WG document. 

 

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-isis-0.pdf

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ospf-8.pdf

 

Acee 

 

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, September 27, 2014 at 4:32 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status
reports?

 

Acee:

 

Was this work announced on any list at IETF for general contribution?  I
don't see an announcement on the ospf list or the ISIS list?  Perhaps you
could point me to the list where this was announced? 

 

Sue 

 

 

From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:58 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'Jeffrey Haas'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status
reports?

 

 

 

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, September 26, 2014 at 11:36 PM
To: Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status
reports?

 

Jeff: 

 

Please add to the agenda the following drafts: I2RS yang Data and
Information models for ISIS, OSPF, Basic Network Policy (BNP), PBR and BGP.
PBR and BGP will be uploaded next week after some internal review.   

 

HI Sue,

We are currently have drafts for the OSPF and ISIS YANG models and have
multi-vendor design teams contributing to them. This works is being done in
the OSPF and ISIS WG groups. You are welcome to review it but please don't
create confusion with alternate drafts. 

 

Thanks,

Acee 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The PBR model is the information model that is a collaboration between the
PBR (draft-kini-i2rs-pbr-info-model-00) and the
(draft-hares-i2rs-policy-info-model).   We hoped to have the agreement on
the text early next week (just 1 technical discussion).   The author team
has had meetings in August and September.   

 

Please add the use case to the agenda. 

 

One question - should I be submitting these I2RS configuration IM/DM as
netmod models? If so, I will do this as well. 

 

Sue 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dean Bogdanovic
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:44 PM
To: Jeffrey Haas
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status
reports?

 

Jeff,

 

To kickstart the discussions

 

looking at what is needed in NETMOD and NETCONF for I2RS

 

datastore for I2RS (use cases for ephemeral data store)

 

working on ACL YANG model - with ACL model available and
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-15 being fixed, PBR info model
(draft-kini-i2rs-pbr-info-model-00) can be extended into data model. I'll
try to submit the draft by the deadline (it is dependent on new
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg, probably draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-16,
being published)

 

Dean

 

On Sep 25, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Jeffrey Haas < <mailto:[e-mail]>
[e-mail]> wrote:

 

> Your chairs have been a bit over-busy recently with travel to unicast 

> people doing various bits of chartered work.  This means we've been 

> behind on some of our goals in terms of getting regular design 

> sessions running.  I know that at least a couple calls have happened 

> that I've missed that Sue Hares has done, so some progress is being made.

> 

> We've requested a 1 hour time slot for IETF 91 in Honolulu to give us 

> a chance to talk.  This is a call for agenda slots.

> 

> This is also a call for status reports.

> 

> We've had some productive discussion about requests to netmod/netconf, 

> albeit ones that haven't converged yet.

> 

> What have you been up to?

> 

> -- Jeff & Ed

> 

> _______________________________________________

> i2rs mailing list

>  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

 

_______________________________________________

i2rs mailing list

 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs