Re: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang-10

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Tom:
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: netmod [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 tom petch
发送时间: 2020年12月23日 19:14
收件人: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>; Lou Berger <[e-mail]>
抄送: NetMod WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; NETMOD Group <[e-mail]>
主题: Re: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang-10

From: netmod <[e-mail]> on behalf of Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
Sent: 21 December 2020 17:12

Hi Lou, WG,

I find the motivation in the Introduction to be focused on ECA at the network devices (with all the talk about issues with Centralized network management).

I see the value of ECA on the controller as well, say a customer network controller or an orchestrator can set the ECA on a central controller (reference ACTN in TEAS WG). Perhaps you would consider adding a sentence to describe this as well. The client-server terminology in the rest of the document covers it already.

And I do see value in this and support adoption.

<tp>
My take is that the I-D is unclear on what ECA is.

[Qin]: Thanks Tom, Adrian raised the similar issue about the abstract improvement and we will address this in v-01.

ECA has been worked on in at least two IETF WG AFAICT.  It cropped up in I2RS but as I recall, it was along the lines of 'This is ECA'  'No It is not'  'Yes it is' which gave me the impression that ECA is not a well-defined, or well-understood, term.

More recently, I2NSF have produced a YANG capability-data-model which is 55 pages of ECA.  Lacking a definition in this netmod I-D, I am unclear what the relationship is between the I2NSF I-D and the netmod I-D, whether or not they are using ECA in the same sense.
[Qin]: I haven't followed closely on what had been done in I2NSF.  But I did talk with two of I2NSF proponents in this year. They tend to agree the model proposed in draft-wwx will serve as the basis for I2NSF security policy model or NSF facing interface DM. Unfortunately I haven't seen their update to do the alignment. I missed their I2NSF recharter discussion meeting. But I would also highly recommend they import the model in draft-wwx and reuse some of these building block. I plan to raise this issue later on.
For I2RS model, it was packet forwarding policy model, which has been expired for many years. If that draft needs to be revived, I think we can follow the similar approach for I2NSF security policy model.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:59 AM Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang-10
>
> Please voice your support or technical objections on list before the 
> end of December 21, any time zone.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Netmod Chairs
>
> PS Note the IPR poll is running concurrently as the private response 
> all indicated that no IPR exists.  The draft will not be formally 
> adopted until both the IPR and WG polls are complete.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod