[L2sm] A question for the WG : I-D Action: draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-04.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 15 February 2017 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8A012955E for <l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:53:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8a1rMocjG9Zx for <l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E6A4129B08 for <l2sm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:53:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1FHreqX028821 for <l2sm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:53:40 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.251.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1FHram8028787 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <l2sm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:53:39 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <l2sm@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:53:36 -0000
Message-ID: <074d01d287b4$70dfbda0$529f38e0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdKHtGvaYuu74oJISxyfrgW9mUWf/g==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22888.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--20.825-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--20.825-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: Hl8mdRz2vU+XKs94NAOH8ru9iqQJLR0v9mnDjfUPq55gg+UjPGL1RevY XtvpGKMqPyIj4R5J2uvdXe2hdwlQb07wBr2c2+08e5NWR5iixe1wryoe90UcsPFJXtgF4GFL5gc Q9o9yjpskW2K8XClr39MDqPEOsvCb28kC8Kr7AslT46Ow+EhYOJyeCPjUvrMOStZtgyGdXLO7fo vhoOYjfIYtODbHEOdRdV5RalLqvEyJ+w2BcN2shpmug812qIbzlvTuxOaR0gLadW4iYSMjUV2tv sxNXD/lT+PN+LabUqBG+R/+80ybQUqkgzox/CQaCLNfGU4dffiowiOYoQ3GExDbjx2RiEl83QcA CR8vEHGFWYc1c3/uLH18Y330vpkb/lmiyIepCs3FlCgYxEaGE8QYGgcp3dr52viB/Jr4D1QJ/aH 0DaAUBZj8YEB3JMRbGhSpfcKQYBRZ4N8EjkhSSMQ7SONKBzNuwEM6ofA+CGMR34ro7k23nbJUBi cQ01GRgEBR2HjnXivaZiJAj8isJFYwdrAHWNZlHPCema1j/6va/szejBayyMJyVGyZPcv9o8WMk QWv6iV95l0nVeyiuFig9kCpMEfCVnRXm1iHN1bEQdG7H66TyOk/y0w7JiZo
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2sm/9Y8Xd0evRz7aB9Ah8-ozne1BxuU>
Subject: [L2sm] A question for the WG : I-D Action: draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-04.txt
X-BeenThere: l2sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: "The Layer Two Virtual Private Network Service Model \(L2SM\)" <l2sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l2sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:53:46 -0000

Thanks for this new revision, authors.

Looking at the diff, I see that the main differences are

1. Add usage example in section 7
2. Change the model structure to be more in line with the L3SM model
3. Adjust the model to put service requirements in the top level so that they
can be easily described using XML snippets in section 7
4. Addition of "cloud-access" as a mode of VPN
5. Fill in a few cases of "TBD" in the description of the module

I also see quite a few places where the text has been cleaned up, but they don't
make a substantial difference to the document (except for making it easier to
read).

The question for the WG is:

Are there any remaining reservations about using this document as a starting
point for IETF work to meet the WG objectives? That question is not "is this
document perfect?" but we are asking whether the WG thinks it would be
impossible to bend this document to meet the WG deliverables.

If there are no more objections (oh, and feel free to express your support!) we
can move forward and start the hard work.

Thanks,
Adrian and Qin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: 15 February 2017 17:06
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-04.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> 
> 
>         Title           : A YANG Data Model for L2VPN Service Delivery
>         Authors         : Bin Wen
>                           Giuseppe Fioccola
>                           Chongfeng Xie
>                           Luay Jalil
> 	Filename        : draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-04.txt
> 	Pages           : 116
> 	Date            : 2017-02-15
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
>    a Layer 2 Provider Provisioned VPN service.
> 
>    This model is intended to be instantiated at management system to
>    deliver the overall service.  This model is not a configuration model
>    to be used directly on network elements, but provides an abstracted
>    view of the Layer 2 VPN service configuration components.  It is up
>    to a management system to take this as an input and use specific
>    configurations models to configure the different network elements to
>    deliver the service.  How configuration of network elements is done
>    is out of scope of the document.
> 
>    The data model in this document includes support for point-to-point
>    Virtual Private Wire Services (VPWS) and multipoint Virtual Private
>    LAN services (VPLS) that use Pseudowires signaled using the Label
>    Distribution Protocol (LDP) and the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) as
>    described in RFC4761 and RFC6624.
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model/
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-04
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-04
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt