Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] Today's IEEE/IETF meeting - Rob's actions

[Scott Mansfield <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Rob,

I will be in listen mode with limited connectivity today.  Any information related to YANG or NETCONF (or related updates to CBOR, RESTCONF, Versioning etc.) can be coordinated with me and I will add it to a YANGsters agenda.  I can present, or as I have stated, anyone that have the inkling to provide an update or tutorial for such topics is welcome to join.  I am certainly interested in NMOP and so will ITU-T, IEEE, O-RAN, and 3GPP as we all try to build YANG that works well together.

Regards,
-scott.

From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 8:20 AM
To: [e-mail]; Russ Housley <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Scott Mansfield <[e-mail]>; Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today's IEEE/IETF meeting - Rob's actions

Hi,

I should hopefully be able to make the call today, but I may be in coffee shop or library and hence limited on how much talking I can do, and with uncertain network connectivity ...

I think that there are 3 things from my side that may be of interest to IEEE and this meeting.

Two open actions:

* 2022-06-21, updated 2023-06-28: Rob Wilton to determine whether the
  NETCONF WG should send a liaison to 802.1 about security
  coordination for draft-ietf-netconf-keystore.

Status Update:
draft-ietf-netconf-keystore has progressed to IESG telechat (waiting on a Discuss to clear).  I've checked the latest text in the draft and there are only very minimal references to IDevIDs & 802.1AR, only as examples, and 802.1AR is only cited as an Informational Reference.  Hence, I think that the issues that were raised by IEEE previously have already been fully addressed, and I believe that no formal liaison to 802.1 is needed, and I think that this action can now be closed.

* 2023-10-23: Rob Wilton to coordinate with Scott Mansfield to give an
  update on SID to the YANGsters group.

Status Update:
I met with Scott and Carsten in person at IETF 118 in Prague.  From the notes, my understanding is that the actions from that meeting was for Scott to follow up with the IEEE leadership, and that has been done.  The update from Scott is that this action can be regarded as being closed at this time.  I suspect that this issue could potentially come back in future if IETF YANG models gain traction in sections of the industry where CBOR SIDs are used and deployed, where the implementations also require CBOR SIDs to be allocated for IEEE YANG modules.


3. A new OPS/Mgmt WG has been chartered:

  *   NMOP: Network Management Operations

Network Management Operations (nmop) (ietf.org)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nmop/about/>

Formally, I think that this WG probably falls under the "OPS" part of OPS & Mgmt, but will have a Mgmt AD as the responsible AD (me currently, moving to Mahesh, as my replacement).

The charter link is above, but the short summary is that this WG is intended as an operator focused working group to help highlight, and potentially solve, network operator issues related to the deployment of IETF network management technologies, particularly at higher levels of scale and automation.  It also supports some level of short term experiments by the operators, but will not do any long term experiments of longer-term network management research, which would naturally go to NMRG.  It will have a set of focus topics of interest to the operators that it will focus work on, and these topics will change over time (with updates to the charter), but it is not intended to either do any significant protocol work, or to take work from other existing WGs.

Specifically for this forum, potentially open topic of interest that may come up in future is a discussion of the relative merits of using SDO based YANG models to manage devices vs those standardized in the industry (e.g., OpenConfig).  If such a discussion does occur then it may be of interest to Scott and the IEEE Yangsters.

I can try and answer any questions on the call (if my audio works), or otherwise via chat, or email.

Regards,
Rob