IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ibnemo] Configured service models

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Sun, 01 November 2015 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0F11B7E65 for <ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 04:21:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8S2C260N_Pvk for <ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 04:21:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bgl-iport-2.cisco.com (bgl-iport-2.cisco.com [72.163.197.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E7021B7E63 for <ibnemo@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 04:21:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=46861; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1446380479; x=1447590079; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=psSeT0Sk0eObtamEEAA36c92RWNT4NQdhB5IoIqHLdA=; b=JvNKSIzTCy3tz3EL9vLX3tGnmRG8xLxNTo+4ulmra8IGwMZJYuqTaUtK aC3O7QBWiWCIR7rj5GY/wsJJCFjK0t2NuzWuYF4Cg9sC0dWpRbUyKBOyC XermqBIKJpj/cdtEo50Ch3qqZ7w0KDnulJ70kq+DGGUrt04FhfbaWneCZ 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CvBABEAzZW/xjFo0hegm6BIG/BFgMXAQmFLkoCgWMBAQEBAQGBC4Q2AQEEAQEBIApBChELIRYBAQkCAgkDAgECARUwBgEMBgIBAYgsDbESkFsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFgSGd4R+h3uBRQWOEIgzjSWJGZMhY4IRHYFlLzSFfgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.20,229,1444694400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="56188213"
Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-2.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2015 12:21:12 +0000
Received: from [10.70.235.184] ([10.70.235.184]) by bgl-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA1CLBBZ002918; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:21:11 GMT
To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bwietf@bwijnen.net>, "ibnemo@ietf.org" <ibnemo@ietf.org>
References: <561FF885.1020904@bwijnen.net>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <563603B6.9060800@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 21:21:10 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <561FF885.1020904@bwijnen.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030105060102070400080106"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ibnemo/1ddCuy99k5XKKN6HMdMMw4N8heM>
Subject: Re: [Ibnemo] Configured service models
X-BeenThere: ibnemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of Nemo, an intent-based North Bound \(NB\) interface consisting of an application protocol running over HTTP \(RESTful interfaces\) to exchange intent-based primitives between applications and meta-controllers controlling virtual network resources \(networks, storage, CPU\)." <ibnemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ibnemo>, <mailto:ibnemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ibnemo/>
List-Help: <mailto:ibnemo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo>, <mailto:ibnemo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:21:23 -0000

Dear all,

IIRC, I said that there are two aspects that make such work proposal at 
risk at the IETF.
1. we go up in the layers (within the API world) with this work, outside 
of the comfort zone of the IETF.
2. the industry will not wait for 2 years to have standardized 
primitives, specifically for a domain specific set of primitives.
This is why I mentioned that opensource is IMO is the best way for such 
a project. There are already several  projects: NIC, Group Based Policy, 
NEMO, Congress. The market will tell us which one will impose itself in 
the end. And, if a RFC is needed then, ISE is there. Ex: ovsdb (RFC 7047).

Regards, Benoit
> During our bar-bof at IETF93, Benoit asked/stated:
>
> Configured service models are outside the scope of the IETF.
>
> We're not sure what Benoit meant here.
> Benoit, can you elaborate?
>
> If others have views/opinions, pleas make them know to this list.
>
> Bert
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibnemo mailing list
> Ibnemo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo
> .
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email