Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09

["Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <[e-mail]>]

Are we following our practices and procedures properly? For the record, in case others are equally puzzled about this call for adoption:

* Different from what the co-chair states in his WG adoption call below (“The authors then resolved all the open issues”), draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09 does NOT resolve all open issues nor does the document reflect all the WG feedback received at IETF 106.

* The WG minutes (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-opsawg-01) miss a significant portion of comments and feedback as Benoit rightly points out below. E.g. Joe Clarke’s (as individual) comments are NOT mentioned at all, my comments are misrepresented.

* The authors did NOT reflect any of the comments made by myself (see https://youtu.be/rY-u8177wpU?t=3785) or by Joe Clarke. IMHO this is NOT appropriate for editors of a “soon to be” WG document. 

* draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09 introduces a lot of new entities, e.g. IFIT Applications, IFIT Domain, IFIT Node, IFIT End-Node, etc. None of these entities are specified in the document, which means that the IETF would endorse a framework without even understanding the components/entities of the framework. The presenter responded (https://youtu.be/rY-u8177wpU?t=3867 ) that it would be just a “very high level framework” that should fit any existing solution. If everything fits, i.e. “I FIT”, “You FIT”, “We all Fit”, … then why do we even need the definition of new entities? There is NO need to define “empty shells” for a lot of new entities, if all what the authors intend to do is compare different solutions.

* Different from what the presenter claimed, IFIT is NOT just “a high-level framework”, but IFIT is a proprietary Huawei technology, see e.g. https://www-ctc.huawei.com/ke/press-events/news/2019/6/first-ifit-pilot-5g-transport-network-beijing-unicom-huawei. Public specifications for IFIT don’t seem to be available, with the exception of draft-li-6man-ipv6-sfc-ifit-02 which introduces new encapsulations. I.e. IFIT-Nodes, IFIT-End-Nodes etc. do exist – we just don’t know what they do. Looking at the people who responded to the adoption thread so far, one could also read the responses as a desire for a detailed documentation of the specification and lessons learned from deployments of Huawei’s IFIT.

Different from draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09, which I do NOT support the adoption of, the following documents might be worthwhile documents (especially given the broad interest) to create/share:
- requirements
- comprehensive industry technology survey
- specification and deployment experiences of Huawei’s IFIT
I already made this suggestion back in the WG meeting at IETF 106 – but per the above it was ignored at multiple levels.

Regards, Frank

From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Dienstag, 17. Dezember 2019 14:43
To: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; opsawg <[e-mail]>; draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors <[e-mail]>
Cc: opsawg-chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09

Hi Tianran,
Hi Benoit,

My last question was only to check if there is enough interest on this work, not an adoption call. There was q&a after the presentation. And Joe cut the line because of the time.

Now this is an adoption call. You are free to suggest or object.
I just did :-)

Regards, B.

And we believe debate is really helpful.

Cheers,
Tianran 

________________________________________
Sent from WeLink
发件人： Benoit Claise<mailto:[e-mail]>
收件人： Tianran Zhou<mailto:[e-mail]>;opsawg<mailto:[e-mail]>;draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors<mailto:[e-mail]>
抄送： opsawg-chairs<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题： Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09
时间： 2019-12-17 20:56:58

Dear all,

After reviewing thehttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-106-opsawg/, I was a little bit puzzled. From my recollection, Joe and Frank had some good feedback on the draft.
Also, in the minutes, I did not see any mention of Joe's feedback. And Frank's feedback on the draft is summarized as 4 words: "the scope is large"
So I went back and reviewed the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY-u8177wpU. 

I support Frank's feedback that this document scope is too large: a mix of an inventory of what exists, a set of requirements, and specifications/framework. I'm wondering: what is the scope of this document? Before we clarify this, I don't think we should adopt this document.

The OPSAWG chair questions at the end of the presentation were:    
	Chair: How many of you have read this document? quite a lot.
	Chair: How many of you think this is a useful work and the working group could
	work on it? still many, 20+.
I was waiting for the negative question but to my surprise, it never came...
	Chair: How many of you don't think ...
If that question would have been asked, I would have come to mic. or at least raised my hand.

It's important to make a distinction between the interest to solve those problems (I believe we have full agreement) and whether this document is a good starting point. I object to the latter, with the document in the current form.
Regards, Benoit

Hi WG,
 
On IETF 106 meeting, we saw predominant interest and support to this draft, especially from operators. The authors then resolved all the open issues.
As requested by the authors, this email starts a 2 weeks working group adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework/ 
 
If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be willing to review and help the draft.
If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point to work on, please say why.
This poll will run until Dec 23..
 
Thanks,
Tianran as co-chair


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