[Openv6] APONF next steps and Doodle poll for bar BOF during IETF 90
<karagian@cs.utwente.nl> Thu, 12 June 2014 14:35 UTC
Return-Path: <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
X-Original-To: openv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55A91B2A68 for <openv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 sJdDebIQDe1T for <openv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out41-ams.mf.surf.net (out41-ams.mf.surf.net [145.0.1.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDC4E1A012D for <openv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXEDGE02.ad.utwente.nl (exedge02.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.5.49]) by outgoing2-ams.mf.surf.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s5CEZmB5028827; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:35:48 +0200
Received: from EXHUB02.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.4.229) by EXEDGE02.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.5.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:35:51 +0200
Received: from EXMBX23.ad.utwente.nl ([169.254.3.152]) by EXHUB02.ad.utwente.nl ([130.89.4.229]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:35:48 +0200
From: karagian@cs.utwente.nl
To: openv6@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: APONF next steps and Doodle poll for bar BOF during IETF 90
Thread-Index: AQHPhkuHmQMfsgFnMUawpwiUc/5DpA==
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:35:46 +0000
Message-ID: <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F4F47C9E5@EXMBX23.ad.utwente.nl>
Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: nl-NL
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [86.91.134.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: utwente-out:default, base:default, @@RPTN)
X-CanIt-Geo: ip=130.89.5.49; country=NL; region=Provincie Overijssel; city=Enschede; latitude=52.2195; longitude=6.8912; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=52.2195,6.8912&z=6
X-CanItPRO-Stream: utwente-out:default (inherits from utwente:default, base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 0vMdqzMT9 - f050db76cfc6 - 20140612 (trained as not-spam)
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openv6/XZ8OpaCXFtESDKsBE_-HZf4ROY0
Cc: sob@harvard.edu
Subject: [Openv6] APONF next steps and Doodle poll for bar BOF during IETF 90
X-BeenThere: openv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Openv6 discussion list <openv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openv6>, <mailto:openv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/openv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:openv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openv6>, <mailto:openv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:35:56 -0000
Hi all, Unfortunately, is our APONF BOF request not approved for IETF 90. However, we received very positive and constructive feedback from the IESG and IAB via Spencer Dowkins (AD). Currently we are studying carefully the feedback and will come back to you with a list of actions soon. In addition to that, we would like to inform you that we are willing to organize a bar BOF during the IETF 90 in Toronto, in order to discuss and possibly solve any issues related to the next steps that we have to take in order to satisfy the IESG and IAB recommendations. In order to find a suitable day and time during the IETF 90, we created a Doodle poll, see below: http://doodle.com/hbtkqvirfyqqteiz Can you please fill in your availability dates as soon as possible and before the 1st of July 2014? Kind regards, Scott Bradner & Georgios Karagiannis ________________________________________ Van: Openv6 [openv6-bounces@ietf.org] namens Spencer Dawkins [spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com] Verzonden: donderdag 12 juni 2014 5:59 Aan: openv6@ietf.org CC: tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org; Ted Lemon Onderwerp: [Openv6] Feedback on APONF BOF request Dear APONF BOF requesters, As the responsible AD for the APONF BOF request, I wanted to report back to you that the IESG and IAB reviewed the APONF BOF request, and decided that APONF wasn't ready for a BOF at IETF 90 in Toronto. I can tell you that both the IESG and IAB members on the call took the request very seriously. I'm thinking we talked about APONF for close to half an hour and returned to it a couple of times during the call. I have some suggestions for you, if you plan to continue to work on this proposal. I'll try to provide them in priority order. Here are the points I noted during the discussion: - First and most important, we had the sense that something like APONF has been done in the past - specifically, NSIS. So the technical feasibility isn't in question. NSIS was completed, including interoperability testing at IETF meetings, so we know it's possible to do something like this. - It would be good to perform a gap analysis on NSIS, and explain why NSIS can't be used to do what APONF wants to do. - NSIS didn't get deployed after it was completed, because most application developers weren't interested in providing information to the network ("best effort was good enough"). The concern was that if only a small percentage of applications provide this information, it will cost more for carriers to deploy it (and modify back office systems to bill for it) than carriers can make selling the service. It would be good to explain why the situation is different in 2014 (and it may be different). - Most people speaking on the call thought it would be more likely that network management applications would provide information to the network, so you might consider limiting the scope of the proposal to network management applications, rather than including end user applications as the proposal does now. - It's possible that distributed data center applications would be willing and able to take advantage of APONF, but the proposal would need to focus on those applications (rather than add them to an existing set of applications under consideration). - More generally, the proposal was considered to be "too large for a single working group", so anything else you could remove would be helpful. - Erik Nordmark asked where the trust boundaries were (is this entirely within an administrative domain, or interdomain? Does the network trust the application? Is the application controlling what the network does, or providing hints that the network would take into account, along with other inputs?). That would be helpful to explain in a bit more detail. I can also tell you that we talked about other "dynamically discovering and changing the configuration of parts of the Internet to support specified services at multiple layers using standard interfaces" proposals on the call, including AECON, ACTN, TIME, VFNCONF. (APONF got points because it was the only proposal that was aware of all the other proposals). The same concerns were raised again and again. Some members of the IAB were talking about whether an IAB workshop to resolve the questions that we asked about each specific proposal in a more general way. It would be helpful to talk to Brian Trammel (IAB) about this, in Toronto. It's also worth noting that Jari would like to find some way to make progress on at least some of these proposals. We recommended an IETF 90 side meeting of BOF proponents from as many of these proposals as makes sense, to look for commonalities and differences. I believe Ted is planning to meet with AECON requesters; if part of the conversation is making the difference between AECON and APONF more clear, perhaps talking to Ted about that meeting would be helpful. I hope this is helpful, and best wishes if you move forward with this proposal. Spencer _______________________________________________ Openv6 mailing list Openv6@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openv6