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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

A couple of reflections on L2SM, just before the end of year break.

First, I want to quote one chairs slides 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-l2sm-chairs-slides-01.pdf: 


    We really need this to be driven by Operators
         - Of course, vendors can and should participate
         - But be aware of how the data model is use

I'm always baffled when vendors 'seem to) know better than the operators 
what they need. I don't believe we have spent enough time listening to 
the few operators in the room during the WG meeting.
We have here a group of operators who want to do work in the IETF, and 
we should respect that.

Second, on the differences between IETF and MEF service management.
MEF wants to go for the full LSO architecture (billing, SLA, order 
management, etc.). Perfect.
L2SM charter wants to do something similar to L3SM: a self-contained 
service YANG module.
It would be nice to try to fit the L2SM service models in the MEF LSO 
architecture, but the L2SM work follows a different architectural model 
to LSO, and that there is no value in trying to match the functions 
across model at all costs. This should not invalidate either approach, 
only observe that they are different.

Third, exactly like the L3SM draft, the L2SM draft includes a number of 
technology-specific parameters and these have caused people to claim 
that the I-D must be describing a normalised or configuration model. But 
(of course?) the parameters are needed to configure the CE-PE access 
connections. This is a suitable point of differentiation between MEF and 
L2SM that MEF has worked on CE-based models while L2SM will work on 
PE-based models. Indeed, the IETF works on the networking aspects. 
However, when a building is done somewhere else (typical example, SLA 
management done in MEF), this L2SM YANG module should only contain a 
place holder or a pointer.

Fourth. Discussing those very topics live with Scott Mansfield (our MEF 
- IETF liaison manager) during a workshop recently, we agree that both 
IETF and MEF service models have a place. While we start to see some 
consolidation in terms of YANG modules for device management, we are 
only at the beginning of YANG service modules.

I hope this is useful and that it clarifies the situation.

Regards, Benoit
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm
> .
>