Re: [netmod] New Version draft-shytyi-netmod-vysm-02.txt as Working Group document.

Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk> Tue, 27 August 2019 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <nite@hq.sk>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E8C120044 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hq.sk
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 NO_j0VurfFvY for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hq.sk (hq.sk [81.89.59.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9E1C120013 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitebug.nitenet.local (chello085216197060.chello.sk [85.216.197.60]) by mail.hq.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDC3F241FD4; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:44:05 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hq.sk; s=mail; t=1566949445; bh=HfjF8PfTppZ9gXPK5GgJzXkVHIpl8qq4ei3acy842X0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=eCQ+/v9h2OJBODezdo4CnQxAaUazGR7mxVTmCkl37koOBHuoyvCfPiLlr+KWq44ZT ieYPhNAaRwr6TDY4T3S1Nq5aAGEIWROU3BJSSzrjg5KtSQ1O06BQCXLIIik8z7Lk6l 9upMMrYbN1loVT9x/gMM1uY/Ps2uwD8DhIlmb92A=
To: Dmytro Shytyi <ietf.dmytro@shytyi.net>, netmod <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <155377227553.1573.8548464832229347361.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <16caabd07ae.de4789c8151923.6368018099125205208@shytyi.net> <16cba30dec2.b91b31ed256364.8160264793634017255@shytyi.net> <16cd3d19305.11aec1852361697.7576623717058940792@shytyi.net>
From: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <5219ac80-b607-b4b4-8c77-72950d4c5137@hq.sk>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:44:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <16cd3d19305.11aec1852361697.7576623717058940792@shytyi.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ccF1IvsLWmLDVhTDFVTzyGGpyii9Ptbuc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/80ej2GI_AD__-oknr7IlTCSfHao>
Subject: Re: [netmod] New Version draft-shytyi-netmod-vysm-02.txt as Working Group document.
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:44:12 -0000

On 27/08/2019 18:03, Dmytro Shytyi wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> I am one of the authors of ID VYSM and I would like to draw your
> attention to the evolution of the
> draft https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shytyi-netmod-vysm-01.txt.
> Recently we produced (but did not submitted yet) a new version of ID
> (02) and I beleive it fits the netmod working group.
> 
> We would be gratefull if you could suggest if the new version(02) of the
> document  could become an official work item of the WG?
>       If yes, could you please indicate which modifications must be done
> in the document before submition.

Hmm, looking over the model, it would seem there is quite a bit of
overlap with RFC8345 -- to the point I believe the model could be
formulated in terms of RFC8345 specialization:

virtualization -> networks/network

device/links/interfaces/switches/vms are probably a mix of
node/termmination-point/link extensions with conjunction with
supporting-{topology,node,link}.

How would the draft relate to RFC8345? Should it perhaps call out it is
a different take on the similar problem, specialized to a particular
use-case?

Regards,
Robert (with RFC8345 co-author hat on)