Re: [mif] WGLC for draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-id

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Ian,

And the metadata is just a binary blob only understood by the PVD-ID 
"owner"?

- Jouni

7/21/2015, 2:02 AM, Ian Farrer kirjoitti:
> Hi Jouni,
>
> The specific things that I think need to be addressed here are:
>
> 1, Removing the decision making process for an operator looking to
> choose the right format to use. This needs to be common across the whole
> of an operator’s network and so needs to be supported by all devices and
> advertising/provisioning protocols present and future. Once deployed at
> any scale, changing this will be non-trivial.
>
> 2, At this stage in the development of the PvD architecture, it is very
> difficult to know how this will need to evolve and be extended in the
> future, so it is almost impossible to make an informed decision about
> what the best PvD format to choose is.
>
> So, this is why I think that choosing a single format with a high
> probability of uniqueness and a small, defined size. But this needs to
> be combined with extensibility for adding meta-data to take advantage of
> the capabilities of less constrained devices and advertising protocols
> so that additional information can be supplied to allow clients /
> applications / users to make an informed decision about the PvD.
>
> How I would see this working is that the PvD-ID itself would be a single
> format - e.g. UUID. This must be advertised in all provisioning
> messages. An additional DHCPv6/PIO option would then be defined that
> allows an operator to add additional meta-data options which are
> associated with the PVD-ID according to their needs / the capabilities
> of the device/protocols etc (i.e. the other PvD-ID formats that have
> been described in the draft).
>
> This allows for the mechanism to be extended as needed without the need
> to change the PvD-ID formats that are in use in existing devices. If you
> want to extend your PvD architecture so that new devices have new logic
> for selecting the correct PvD based on new logic, then you can add a new
> PvD-ID meta-data option linked to an existing PvD-ID without needing to
> change the underlying PvD architecture or devices that you have deployed.
>
> With the current mechanism as described, to make any changes to your PvD
> architecture to support new client PvD selection logic requires
> deploying another PvD format in parallel to the existing one. This is,
> by the PvD architecture a new PvD, even if the service properties are
> identical to an existing PvD which you have already deployed. Then, your
> provisioning protocols need to advertise duplicate configuration for
> both of the PvDs, even thought that configuration is the same, with the
> exception of the PvD-ID.
>
> So, the short answer to your question is: Single PvD-ID format (I like
> UUID) + extensible associated meta-data.
>
> Cheers,
> Ian
>
>
>> On 20 Jul 2015, at 20:08, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Ian,
>>
>> So would UUID be adequate PVD-ID format as suggested below?
>>
>> What about the additonal information part? Not needed?
>>
>> - Jouni
>>
>>
>> 7/20/2015, 7:33 AM, Ian Farrer kirjoitti:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Before this document can proceed, I think that there is still a
>>> significant open point. Multiple or single PVD ID formats?
>>>
>>> This question has been raised a few times at WG meetings, but there is
>>> no reflection in the draft as it stands. This is an excerpt from the
>>> IETF91 minutes:
>>>
>>> Margaret: 2 changes proposed: move to single unique short ID (UUID)
>>>   and allow for additional info to be a part of the ID. So can we
>>>   try to reach consensus on each?
>>>
>>> Who thinks we should move to one unique format?
>>>  (a couple of hands; 2nd time asking had about 10 hands)
>>> Who thinks we should not use a single unique format?
>>>  (no hands)
>>>  OK. Single unique.
>>>
>>> So, I would like to see this discussion take place before the document
>>> progresses.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 14 Jul 2015, at 17:18, Hui Deng <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> We would like to have a 3 weeks WGLC for the below document:
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-id/
>>>>
>>>> Please help to send your comments to this thread.
>>>> This WGLC will end on Aug. 5th.
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks
>>>>
>>>> DENG Hui
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mif mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mif mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>