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

Susan Hares <> Thu, 09 July 2020 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB14A3A0BF3; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pCOuQiKkq4x9; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A871F3A0BF2; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Magnus Westerlund' <>, 'The IESG' <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 10:27:38 -0400
Message-ID: <005b01d655fd$18ffea40$4affbec0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQI2gAtXbu/0A3Ia7tY9Mtss/XLeq6g+9u3A
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200709-4, 07/09/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
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, 09 Jul 2020 14:27:49 -0000


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). 


-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker [] 
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:44 AM
To: The IESG
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.