IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netmod] FW: IETF91 NETMOD agenda ?

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 22 October 2014 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037C21A8847 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 YTu2d79Oxs3v for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27C251A883F for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20116; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413936289; x=1415145889; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=KMZW68xMmY9ib8A/zZv9SEeZUAT+ZnG2GNu271nwKGM=; b=N0MxieQcIpJ3oMMqERxC6QsGf4aAU26BSZBZeuqGwtEUjumoOWHpdli5 Go6EKeXjJpUKsu50J1ZY/cnp2TeS7CzQTN3wq2cOQG0aQNlQZCKMD3o5C FeOB09c7SIkI9MXSfzq47ygPMB3xohxP8XcCj0IY+vZCKXF4GoBTZcjHj o=;
X-Files: ATT00002.txt : 133
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: An8FAMXzRlStJA2D/2dsb2JhbABcgkhGU1gEgwK5So5IgWYBC4Z3VAIbeBYBfYQCAQEBAgIBAQEgCkEbAgEIEQEDAQELHQMCAgIlCxQDBAEBBQMCBAESCAEFiDENsT6UdgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReQJi0KAYJ3NoEeBZIBgg6BUGiIQzyDDJEtg3hsAYFHgQMBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,765,1406592000"; d="txt'?scan'208,217";a="89155209"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2014 00:04:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9M04mwc030819 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:04:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.189]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:04:48 -0500
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] IETF91 NETMOD agenda ?
Thread-Index: AQHP7Xb3DvWoTPdbPEqKhstsfCTVD5w7Lt2ggAANXAA=
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:04:47 +0000
Message-ID: <EF64FF31F4C4384DBCE5D513A791C2B120A55EB6@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
References: <A125E53CE190A749957C19483DC79F9F5C977E5A@US70TWXCHMBA11.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <D8D374DB-32C6-4725-AD1B-D4E1B23BC966@lucidvision.com> <EF64FF31F4C4384DBCE5D513A791C2B120A55E7A@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EF64FF31F4C4384DBCE5D513A791C2B120A55E7A@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.116.134.135]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_EF64FF31F4C4384DBCE5D513A791C2B120A55EB6xmbalnx11ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/-2P_D0HqYyYP6c3z29kva00JQa4
Subject: [netmod] FW: IETF91 NETMOD agenda ?
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:04:52 -0000

It might also be good top summarize the set of topics below during the interim call tomorrow.   That would tee up exactly what could be on the plate for Hawaii.

Eric

From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Voit (evoit)
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:00 PM
To: Thomas D. Nadeau; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] IETF91 NETMOD agenda ?

I would like to talk about
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-voit-netmod-peer-mount-requirements/

We chatted about this document in an Interim call two weeks ago.  The intro PPT is here<http://www.voit.org/Peer-Mount-Netconf-WG-Oct2014.pdf>.  A result of the call was that we had a wide ranging alias discussions.  A review in Hawaii would allow a recap/summary of mailing list discussions, as well as an introduction to the concepts to other participants.

Note that several discussions came out of the call.  Each has implications to possible charters across various IETF WG.  Worthy of discussion are:

- RFC 6244 defines a single-box architecture.  YANG syntax is used for multi-device abstractions in the OpenDaylight controller.  Should the IETF consider architectures where YANG models span devices?

- RFC 5277 on Netconf notifications doesn’t include information on how to handle Pub/Sub.  There is also some demand for Pub/Sub which is tied to YANG with no required linkage to a transport protocol.  There are also needs for Pub/Sub beyond YANG.  How should we approach this area?

Eric

From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas D. Nadeau
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:34 PM
To: Sterne, Jason (Jason)
Cc: netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] IETF91 NETMOD agenda ?


          Not yet. Please propose topics.

          —Tom


On Oct 21, 2014:5:32 PM, at 5:32 PM, Sterne, Jason (Jason) <jason.sterne@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:jason.sterne@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

Is there a preliminary agenda for the two NETMOD sessions at IETF91 ?

Some thought about topics being split between the 1st (longer) and 2nd (shorter) sessions ?

Thanks,
Jason

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email