Re: [L2sm] Adoption poll for draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-03.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 18 November 2016 14:25 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 E7AD312944D for <l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:25:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 Pdm4ShHTgcyY for <l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F1EF12941C for <l2sm@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:25:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id uAIEPJJB001671; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:25:19 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([58.120.104.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id uAIEPFSN001510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:25:18 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'David Ball'" <daviball@cisco.com>, <l2sm@ietf.org>
References: <0d4501d24132$62ceb590$286c20b0$@olddog.co.uk> <fe6e128f-6bc2-7164-3882-ad4d9de862a1@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe6e128f-6bc2-7164-3882-ad4d9de862a1@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:25:12 -0000
Message-ID: <0f1f01d241a7$959b1c00$c0d15400$@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: AQKr5J3krbFM/YS1TonUwzHGXgh46QJyHoO4nxfoDOA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22706.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--30.354-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--30.354-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: nI1cAR4k0HZwyAmzxb7Z08WUKBjERoYTbv16+gil4jecpGufbGiAqLsI asnPqvyQd24Rguv/KKI3vYlaZwwyvdPYURkTpZRibBu6+EIezdzS+VqQO/GHvMi9AjK6C8p1fyQ W2LN7ubFtK35dXf54/2AEpbtQJ9CedYq+JDDD9d51fPeXvwXdieiY+s2L3xQEauHKE5Laxl/S4n ZpaTqEVhZoMlHjnT1RGNuEWCXlYde2eMRDvAoUtRHRbGr1ECgHI5K4Cd+0ao9BRe0Gd+ZWd5iF9 1oJeq4SWxwLlsLfqJjxTwx4UJIMcgHu7QwNULrhgFd2TFaysMgZskwWqoib3ARixCz2NMPb8eqZ Vr8C7tXT1jRavQ81vcb1hFT4R4iE932fm8yB1Z4mtTGirqG/D34yToAKzDgmuu0N7j6PSiOQoxD k18vskQLsIFHWD2ZFddFy8k5Fp0PMy6K24fisq691/YHX0i1l9wGZvWYZl5eNhQy64yjQD1i8QT zWbO3PgTWj4N8Xhb2WEHRkALXtipj50ewQ/8wVFqNNeSB7ZZBimi8LvNfmr8naL1ri/ilX2zUIf ORoaiIRW3Fo+hK3sB5hmP6OM/PJTX7PJ/OU3vL+xOhjarOnHrHlqZYrZqdI+gtHj7OwNO0CpgET eT0ynA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2sm/AdcwEn_q7Klm0ao7pmMBeaTdmAk>
Subject: Re: [L2sm] Adoption poll for draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-03.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: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:25:27 -0000

Hi David,

A similar question about the amount of protocol or network implementation
details in the model was raised a couple of times at the mic in the meeting.

IIRC it was Himanshu who offered to take a pass on the document to try to list
those excessive objects.

But I think there are several categories that we need to consider.

1. Those parameters that described the CE-PE link in a PE-mode VPN.
    These can be presented per-service or per-link. They are a necessary
    part of the service specification and cannot be omitted, I believe.

2. Those parameters that describe behaviors within the network. As I
    understand it, these fall into two sub-categories:

   a. Parameters that don't belong in a truly abstract description of the
      service, but which customers habitually request the ability to specify 
      and which the service providers habitually offer. I think we will need
      to have support for these because we are aiming for a model that
      will see support and deployment at once, as (obviously) this is not
      an academic exercise. 

   b. Parameter that are a "step to far" and which should be removed.

Determining the balance between these categories will probably require some
discussion.


But let's quickly jump from that discussion to try to understand the way forward
you would like to see. Clearly you think changes to the document are needed and
it sounds like everyone agrees that that is true. And that sounds (to me) like
you believe we have a document we can work with to serve as a basis for updates.
What isn't obvious to me is why you don't think that the working group should
have control of this discussion and the changes to the document. What do you
propose?

Thanks,
Adrian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Ball [mailto:daviball@cisco.com]
> Sent: 18 November 2016 10:32
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; l2sm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [L2sm] Adoption poll for
draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-03.txt
> 
> I do not believe that draft is a good basis for L2SM work as is - much
> of the content pertains to information that is internal to the SP's
> network and implementation of the service, rather than what is relevant
> to the customer of the service.  Such content does not belong in a
> customer service model (which is what L2SM is chartered to develop).  In
> addition the draft is not well aligned with MEF specifications.
> 
> I have given further feedback to the authors of the draft offline,
> including asking them to clarify the intent of their draft.  To date I
> have had assurances from Adrian but no response from the authors.
> 
> 
>      David
> 
> 
> On 18/11/2016 00:26, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Our charter mandates that we consider basing our work on
> > draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-03.txt
> >
> > As we discussed in the meeting, that draft is not perfect. But when I asked
the
> > room whether we thought that it would provide a good starting point that we
> > could work with to polish and adapt to become the I-D that we ultimately
> submit
> > for publication as an RFC, I believe I heard a good hum in favour and
silence in
> > opposition.
> >
> > So this email starts a formal poll for adoption. Please answer:
> >
> > Do you think that the WG should adopt draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-
> 03.txt?
> >
> > If "yes," it would help if you could indicate whether you have read the
draft
> > and how happy you are with it.
> > If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.
> >
> > This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Saturday 3rd December.
> >
> > Just to reassure everyone that adoption does not imply that anything is set
in
> > stone: we expect the WG to continue to develop the content and change
> whatever
> > needs to be changed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian and Qin
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > L2sm mailing list
> > L2sm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm
> 
> --
> David Ball
> <daviball@cisco.com>