Re: [Ideas] draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement and "Common Infrastructure"

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

Tim,

Well it seems I got an upgrade to contributing to the problem 
statement.  I missed that in the last go around hours before the draft 
cutoff.  Thanks Padma.

I said 'requirements' to soften the blow, so to speak, about 'why NOT 
LDAP'.  Plus the data model to see if it can fit into an LDAP schema.

Of course we could always go with DAP instead for richer policy control 
and distributed data support!  (was it actually 20 years ago that I 
worked on this stuff? yikes!)

Bob

On 07/05/2017 10:05 AM, tjw ietf wrote:
> Bob!
>
> Brian and I had chatted briefly about charter direction and we wanted 
> to hear some of the discussions during the session. And that's what 
> they pay us the big bucks for!
>
> But I have to agree with your plan of attack.  If we could give some 
> guidance:
>
> - work on the problem statement and gap analysis but don't invest 
> larger cycles of time on them.
>
> - requirements are good to capture, but we will shy away from turning 
> them into published documents as they will change over time
>
> - some discussion on LDAP is very necessary as the code base has 
> gotten quite mature.
>
> tim
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Robert Moskowitz 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Disclaimer: I had a hand in edits to this version, though I am not
>     listed in the Ack section.  In particular I pushed for "Common
>     Infrastructure", not "Common Control Plane".
>
>
>     We have been talking a lot about Identity and Identifier and
>     metadata.  One of the tasks of this workgroup (and charter item)
>     needs to be data modeling of what is intended to be stored/available.
>
>     Further there needs to be Yet Another Gap Analysis (YAGA? :) ) on
>     why NOT LDAP or some other mature xyz data store access protocol. 
>     I start with LDAP as there is actually a fit, and the various
>     server implementations are very mature with good, secure, backends
>     and data replication tools.
>
>     It is time to start thinking charter.  The problem statement, gap
>     analysis, and use cases is barely a start. What the group is going
>     to DO is focus now.
>
>     So I propose two work items:
>
>     Common Infrastructure data modeling (and someone other than me can
>     do it in YANG).
>     Common Infrastructure protocol requirements with a subsection on
>     LDAP comparision.
>
>     Bob
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ideas mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ideas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas