Re: [netmod] IETF-95 Meeting Notes
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 05 April 2016 03:33 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 089FB12D658 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 20:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 3g6Q-xo1li7l for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 20:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D7AC712D648 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 20:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31694 invoked by uid 0); 5 Apr 2016 03:33:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2016 03:33:28 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id eTZM1s00M2SSUrH01TZQ8a; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 21:33:28 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=aJ5j99Nm c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=kziv93cY1bsA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=8-vk5mV8h8H12RRskxsA:9 a=8g8Dk5d-OE7kieuX:21 a=rzuJohY4cSxtvhwM:21 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject; bh=gvsqjr9lVmB1XB3odDsppRzt3VDpHHyJuVmZRvAncjY=; b=Bdm6IEB+vMsrBJyqB7fsIyD56t Z0Vsk0EfPDx1BM7wvYtjdsz1lmRT635MM1o3WAipu5hlrWUWG9GFYvDt/uqcoIw2TmX28y6QumSJY sj/93dKorSVNSKuuvkdpdeT2O;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:40932 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1anHk1-0002fu-2r for netmod@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 21:33:21 -0600
To: netmod@ietf.org
References: <BLU436-SMTP134750262F7282DCF17198FFA9E0@phx.gbl>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <570331F0.9050705@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 23:33:04 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP134750262F7282DCF17198FFA9E0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/zeml6MwjXKF9aI2HjDytGX4VZ7U>
Subject: Re: [netmod] IETF-95 Meeting Notes
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 05 Apr 2016 03:33:36 -0000
On 4/4/2016 10:39 PM, Ashesh Mishra wrote: > All, > > Please review the notes from today’s NETMOD WG sessions and make > revisions if we missed any comment that was made during the meetings. > > http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-95-netmod?useMonospaceFont=true > > ONLY add comments that were made DURING the meetings. :) > > Thanks, > NETMOD WG. > > Kudos to Ashesh and all who helped out contributing to the session and the notes. Here's the actual initial raw notes... NETMOD Agenda For IETF 95 Monday, April 4th, 2016 15:50-17:20 Monday Afternoon session II 17:40-19:40 Monday Afternoon session III Room: Atlantico C <ACTION> Update presentation links in Agenda (@Chairs) 0 Title: Agenda & Intro Draft: n/a Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-0.pptx Presenter: Chairs Notes: Lou: New IPR rules. Chairs will request IPR disclosures from authors/contributors at various steps. <Kent reviewed WG status> 1 Title: YANG Summary Draft: n/a Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-1.pdf Presenter: Benoit Claise Notes: Mehmet: Do we have crieria defined with which we can analyze which models are relevant for standardization? Benoit: Two answer. 1. L3VPN service model (L3SM) will help determine with server YANG models are required 2. The other WG will have to decide for themselves Eliot: Should we hold progress to wait for OpState and Mount compatibility? Benoit: They need focus and need to be resolved. Dean: Merge pyang 1.1 into main branch. Have an option to complile with 1.0 or 1.1. Lada: That's what's being worked on. Charles: Is it possible to tie pyang to ID-to-nits or to xml2rfc? 2 Title: Opstate & schema mount update Draft: n/a Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-2.pptx Presenter: Chairs Notes: Kent: Open items with requirements doc: Data node locality, simulatenous access to intended and applied config, telemetry data. John Messenger(?): Crystalizing requirement document helps focus the work, but maybe not everyone will agree with it. Lou: Requirements are good/right, but they are not the full set that will be captured in the full solution. We'll know what's really right when we implement it. At this time, we believe requirements document is good enough to proceed with the solution. 3 Title: Schema Mount Draft: structual-mount/ysdl Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-3.pdf Presenter: Ladislav Lhotka / Martin Bjorklund Notes: Chris: What is the difference between schema and a model? Lada: Good question, but I'm not going to answer that now. (?) Jason Sterne: In the logical device, if we want to put interfaces and ACLs to mount point, can't we add references from ACL to interface? Lada: The sub-schema would contain both, interfaces and ACLs. So you will be able to refer between the interface and ACL. Can't refer from logical device to parent device. Eric Voit: There is also alias-mount. Will be discussed later, but is not covered by schema mount. Andy: Concern that schema-mount throwing away YANG statements will result in invalid models Lada: Within a logical mount point, one can refer to other leafs, but not leafs in another root/mount point. Andy: I am fine with that restriction. Benoit: Is it possible that we'd have a deviation in a model and another one in the mount? Lada: ??? Dean Bogdanovic: Support schema node identifier option instead of mount-point extension to yang. Lou: Different use cases (??) where mount-point fits better. Andy: Anydata tells clients that there may be nodes Lada: We need to discuss this more. 4 Title: Needing an extensible Mount syntax across Schema, Alias, & Peers Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-mount Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voit-netmod-peer-mount-requirements Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-4.pptx Presenter: Eric Voit Notes: Dean Bogdanovic: Terminology is a bit different from Lada's presentation Eric: Shouldn't be any difference. Lada: Don't think there's any difference. Dean: Okay. Chris: Are the alias and peer mount client driven (does the client control them)? Eric: peer mount is not signaled today. Defined in the mount point. Mount server is the source of the info that is mounted from the client. Kent: with regards to defining an extensible syntax, this needs to be discussed on the list. Lou: Is the peer/alias mount requested by the server or the client? Eric: he element doing the requesting of mounted data is the client. This is where the mountpoint exists. The server doesn't have to know that the data is being represented as Mounted. 5 Title: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-5.pdf Presenter: Andy Bierman Notes: Issue: "the anyxml statement MUST NOT be used to represent a conceptual subtree of YANG data nodes Martin: "Must not use anyxml" is okay in 6087-bis. These recommnedations are more strict than the language allows. Lou: personal preference to not having options, thus MUST NOT is prefered Issue closed => leave the text unchanged John:??? Andy: not in the draft yet Andy: Should --ietf pyang option be used on examples? Maybe/maybe-not. If not, then use <EXAMPLE BEGINS> ... <EXAMPLE ENDS> tags Benoit: Should the <EXAMPLE BEGINS> tag be suggested to other SDOs? Mahesh: Other SDOs submit yang models as separate files so this issue doesn't always apply to them. Kent Watsen: things "example" refers to XML instance documents, maybe a better word can be found Andy: Requesting recommendations for other conventions that should be in this draft. Acee: is this going to be in this document or another Andy + chairs: this one Mahesh: I prefer in a BCP Rajiv: Recommend a proper structure for a yang model (graphical representation + guideline). Also, recommend what is contained in the operational-state. 1720: Beverage and Snack Break 6 Title: QoS YANG Model Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asechou-netmod-qos-yang Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-12.pptx Presenter: Mahesh Jethanandani Notes: Kent: Does this document replace the 03 diffserv document? Mahesh: Yes. Lou: Why was the model renamed? Mahesh: Original model excluded anything L2 related. Idea is that this model should be extensible to other layers/features. Dean: Common abstraction of QoS is difficult because of different implementations from vendors. Need more active participation from other vendors. Benoit: SUPA has YANG model for policy and does such abstraction well. Mahesh: Havne't reviewed it. Will do. Dean: There's no way to extend what SUPA is doing for policy for the QoS model. ??? from Ericcson (?): There's a QoS model in rtgwg. 7 Title: SYSLOG YANG Model Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-6.pptx Presenter: Clyde Wildes Notes: Kent: Is there a desire to extend this to support TLS? Clyde: Current draft supports this. Data elements to support key exchange not added. Lou: What's left for this draft? Clyde: Benoit asked to make change to examples (?). Lou: Is the document ready after these changes? Clyde: Yes. 8 Title: YANG Model Classification Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-7.pptx Presenter: Dean Bogdanovic Notes: Jason Sterne: Why do we use extension vs augmentation in "vendor specific extension" Dean: May have multiple identities that not all vendors support. Kent: how much left until ready to Last Call Dean: it's ready now, assuming the WG is okay with the changes made to this version of the draft Lou: what about going deeper and add more catagories (e.g. OAM)? Dean: customers have said that it's too complicated Lou: but the OpenConfig folks had a more detailed model 9 Title: ACL YANG Model Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-8.pptx Presenter: Dean Bogdanovic Notes: Jason Sterne: Feels that interfaces shouldn't be part of base model, doesn't think there is broad support Elliot Lear: there many be a need for other motdels to define separate ACLs for input and output interfaces Chairs: call for if interface should be in base: 6 prefer NOT having it in the doc at all 5 prefer having it in, but as a feature 2 prefer having it in the doc as required 10 Title: Routing Cfg YANG Model Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-9.pptx Presenter: Acee Lindem Notes: <no questions> 11 Title: Network Device YANG Organizational Model Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-10.pptx Presenter: Acee Lindem Notes: Dean Bogdanovic: Why are we putting the ietf keychain in top-level instead of system managemnet? Acee: Would ACL go there too? Dean: It's HW specific. Acee: Devices put keychains at the top of the tree so that they can be used across. Sue Hares: Put ACLs and filters at the same level. Dean: do you think they (keychain and ACLs) should be at the same level Benoit: how does it makes sense for the routing design team to define a model that impacts models outside of the routing area? Dean: Splitting it up into different WGs would be complex and cause the models to get watered down Lou: this draft is informational, should have no impact. Lou: do we want a structure or not? Chris Hopps: Benoit, would it be ok if we just talked to other groups and kept the document progressing in routing area/wg? Lou: when we lost /device, we decided to make the draft Informational guy in red t-shirt (Jeff Tantsura?): would like to see it be stronger than Informational Jeff Haas ???: Jason Sterne: RFC LNE and NI ... rest can be informational Chris Hopps: some think there should be no structure Andy B: don't go with absolute paths Lou: call for support (strong guideline vs Informational) Strong Guideline: 8 Informational: 6 Go away: 6 Don't care: 1 12 Title: Subscribing to YANG datastore push updates Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-11.pptx Presenter: Eric Voit Notes: Chairs: The details of this draft belong in NetConf. Discussion belongs there. 13 Title: YANG Data Model for Configuration Scheduling Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-netmod-yang-schedule Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-13.pptx Presenter: Xufeng Liu Notes: Jason Sterne: have you considered any alternate (point-cut like) approach of having a list that can point to subtrees where scheduling is desired? Kent Watsen: Why do we want to standardize a grouping? Lou: It didn't seem to belong to teas wg. Scheduling was beyond the scope of the te topology wg document. Jeff Haas: I2RS had discussion on calendar objects as part of ephemeral state. This is a nice mechanism since the info is not ephemeral. Andy: All sibling nodes and sub-trees are activated/deactivated based on schedule? How does this work with validation? Xufeng: The schema tree won't change. This is applicable to object. Jeff Haas: This does not affect the config. 14 Title: BBF YANG Models Draft: n/a Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-14.pptx Presenter: William Lupton Notes: Benoit: something about the guidelines draft? Balaz: can you put your mouldes on IETF github? Chairs: please discuss on list 15 Title: Manufacturer Usage Descriptions Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-00 Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-ietf-netmod-acl-dnsname-00 Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-14.pptx Presenter: Eliot Lear Notes: Adjourn 19:40
- [netmod] IETF-95 Meeting Notes Ashesh Mishra
- Re: [netmod] IETF-95 Meeting Notes Lou Berger