Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09
"Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com> Fri, 20 December 2019 07:10 UTC
Return-Path: <fbrockne@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770E2120129; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 23:10:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.498 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=PAnIPtkv; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=VRlpWBee
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 HA2bnGTyT7MC; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 23:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6E9612006E; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 23:10:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=26612; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1576825821; x=1578035421; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=sb9yv1JNSj73J6Obdrvnj6jU4wnHjD/40+RsnckQyh0=; b=PAnIPtkvH0EGFQ32tNMyE0XOCP0iLxeEzp9MPIlhHfxr/C6qV7PxnhpU ov6WcSpWgpYVczqPvYea3mPVWgVIRESOPyO56/O2/CaAHMRavqf1JlC37 uc0IECsQcuslVsLp9pz27nhTCcx7rg16FlHbvYlokAVpJBLzTFqPx5BDl I=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:B5rmARCnXnmVYTTEZi5uUyQJPHJ1sqjoPgMT9pssgq5PdaLm5Zn5IUjD/qs03kTRU9Dd7PRJw6rNvqbsVHZIwK7JsWtKMfkuHwQAld1QmgUhBMCfDkiuIvTwaCc5GslqX15+9Hb9Ok9QS47z
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DhAQCFcvxd/4ENJK1lGwEBAQEBAQEFAQEBEQEBAwMBAQGBfIFNUAVsWCAECyoKg32DRgOKc4JfmAiBQoEQA1QJAQEBDAEBJQQEAgEBgWOCXQIXggUkOBMCAw0BAQQBAQECAQUEbYULBiYMhV4BAQEBAxIGBQYRDAEBJQUCBgIDAQsEAgEGAhEEAQEDAiMDAgICMBQBCAgCBAENBQgMBweCewQCgkYDLgECDI8JkGQCgTiIYXWBMoJ+AQEFgTUBg2MDFYIMCYEOKIwZGoFBP4ERR4FOfj6CZAICARmBDwUBEgEJGBWCeTKCLIc+hXYggmOFe4k9jix0CoI0hzKEdIoNgkN1hwSEQYd8g1iOUZgNgkQCBAIEBQIOAQEFgWkiDVpxcBU7gmwJRxgNgx+JcwwXg0oGgkuBc1aBZYNadAEBARUBgQ+NZYEiAYEPAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,334,1571702400"; d="scan'208";a="681488118"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 20 Dec 2019 07:10:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBK7AJoq013849 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:10:19 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:10:18 -0600
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:10:18 -0600
Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:10:18 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=m8bZM6hRwtj/axvB0eL+rMe2ALLSriuteWnnxgWcWSFvQXhkdD/LVXitd4e9cZE6vKwuQ90cFVqS2A9UoNkMSuEDvmiDDxMsAHrWXdaGRfeiQcUPtSA2fymO+1QzvvS4eC24KvW0ZCyl9UgaMOOFWdhci+AXQYlg8S7VnFml7uWbDx9n7ViTQaieiRG0dlNtb2EOZ2XOzko4LPCqs3u8WnMuCMKCq8Paczil3L4xc3u5uEAvZa9FBJwjpSbjFe7NMKbtXc7M/1M/ZxJeVyZ3U//M/hw/7ImkM0Anb3C/jahzAm8wxwKgfnIf0QYCUlEVAJ6TuUR2Vy+EPmABHr8zIQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=sb9yv1JNSj73J6Obdrvnj6jU4wnHjD/40+RsnckQyh0=; b=BtWrmabbciDXtu0aetuwXJaXoCyCxCknU/5bbjM+6IERJhHR0X8gBNxtb0MNl6br7+seqcXrDpj1HWmjNCQ5xox6HR1gC6uj8/QFTeaCH6X6W29N9Ofxjl/e+UBuAIRMYaL3Y1DjDjQzNAKWw2op5QXHAy0ADASEVubRLtyqfrLuIq9cIC8kcCs6ar5QLciL2B68Iou2AO5h9GYoCExdoiQeBto0dYgpJ4wiB2+1Vtd2K3M0qhRDkadEowQ00QFoMwekKEm8xMEOcJsQ7+uPLhuNyokiuvx1FIpGJjT006FPzoa1p9/xWL5s7BIdcTrAQBa/T5/++5b4BTHKZl8HtQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=sb9yv1JNSj73J6Obdrvnj6jU4wnHjD/40+RsnckQyh0=; b=VRlpWBeePNJlt3tym5/6d851SXsz922BTMPHSXCITTGJBto/1jf4UPChyeeeepZE2q5f6USN6eSsgrzYnTJFe+dCwx1HsXAo4B4QazuFGXXIjuZYRewsDS+ZObFJ4y5lhPUYgMVZefh5i7OxQcm4HD92moAGrP195syhdWfGMcg=
Received: from BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.228.31) by BYAPR11MB2871.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.226.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2538.18; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:10:16 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ecc9:8b5b:8048:2f46]) by BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ecc9:8b5b:8048:2f46%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2559.016; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:10:16 +0000
From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, "draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors" <draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors@ietf.org>
CC: opsawg-chairs <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09
Thread-Index: AdWuTgs1peGnP0a/SLi3HG/cQ1ovRgGi1miAAAEGQ4AAAJu3AABBd3VAAAgXDloAHGLCsAAGMwWwAByuqlA=
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:10:16 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB25847646AACAF8781B863476DA2D0@BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BF135AC8@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <67f5447c-37a0-62e4-9dd0-0ae380178dc3@cisco.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BF1472CD@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <421292da-8b8a-86eb-a02a-47049b62ed31@cisco.com>, <BYAPR11MB25848EAB156F7500064C87D4DA530@BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR13MB248558E954FF02B9D630D0709A520@BYAPR13MB2485.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR11MB258445D30B97C7A232DA4B1CDA520@BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR13MB2485F5512A1BCDD8CCD6D0C19A520@BYAPR13MB2485.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR13MB2485F5512A1BCDD8CCD6D0C19A520@BYAPR13MB2485.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=fbrockne@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.49]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 06c6fff8-7d01-4945-4c68-08d7851baa42
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2871:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB28711EB8AD18A1168C513232DA2D0@BYAPR11MB2871.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 025796F161
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(189003)(199004)(51444003)(13464003)(66476007)(71200400001)(76116006)(81166006)(4326008)(8676002)(9686003)(26005)(66446008)(110136005)(81156014)(8936002)(186003)(5660300002)(86362001)(7696005)(64756008)(66556008)(316002)(4001150100001)(966005)(33656002)(52536014)(2906002)(6506007)(55016002)(30864003)(478600001)(45080400002)(66946007)(53546011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB2871; H:BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 06c6fff8-7d01-4945-4c68-08d7851baa42
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Dec 2019 07:10:16.1708 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 0KDb2krVmSDbkzcWMA8hLqVI1faGyP7tmQHVtcuk1j8IZs/bNROhAm1gcNndgAk5Fx13Bcr3cExlTiLjgH3VkQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2871
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.12, xch-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/q4nWgV8-N2ro3YEnRF5XdypAZiQ>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:10:26 -0000
Haoyu, Thanks. Reading through your response below, you still don't seem to follow what I say. The document in its current form isn't appropriate as a standards document. That is why I suggested a couple of options to make it one - which you seem to ignore. The fact that several people find it useful does make it an appropriate standards document. E.g. a Huawei whitepaper might also be considered useful by several people, still a whitepaper is not a standards document. And per what I said earlier, if you decide to evolve your document towards a properly scoped specification, make sure that you choose a proper and non-confusing name. If your IFIT is really different from Huawei's IFIT, then just call it something else. Even your co-worker Alex Clemm was suggesting a name change. Happy holidays. Frank > -----Original Message----- > From: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Dezember 2019 19:01 > To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; opsawg > <opsawg@ietf.org>; draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors <draft-song- > opsawg-ifit-framework.authors@ietf.org> > Cc: opsawg-chairs <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework- > 09 > > Hi Frank, > > Thank you very much for the feedback. However I want to clarify a few things. > > The core of the draft is a framework for data plane on-path telemetry. It's not a > dedicated requirement document, neither a survey. The challenges we described > are just used to motivate the framework. The standard gap analysis is also > necessary to show how this framework can be implemented in the future. While > I agree the document is not perfect and still need to improve, I think the main > information and logic flow are clear. I also think the document is self-sufficient. > It's just a high level guide for future development but doesn't intend to put any > constraints. > > I said “Other documents might also be needed but they are out of scope of this > one”, not to reference some non-existing document, but to respond to your > previous email in which you suggest other documents like survey and > deployment experience etc. This document does not server those purpose. > > While you ask for detailed specification (up to the level about how the controller > to configure the nodes and what data to export, etc.) , you may still think from a > perspective that this document is a solution specification, but it's not. I'm very > sorry for that impression. We already emphasized in the document that we don’t > intend to specify any interface and implementation details, but to describe high > level functions. To server that purpose, a loose definition for the terms is > enough and proper. > > For example, we define iFIT Node as "a network node that is in an iFIT domain > and is capable of iFIT-specific functions." So yes it forwards and processes > traffic. I don't think anybody will misunderstand this. You ask how, for which we > can only provide high level function descriptions but won't specify any detail > because we have made it very clear that's not the intention of this document. > > So let's just focus on the current scope and content of the document, to see if > it's useful and valuable to the community as a whole. From the majority > responses, mostly from real network operators, the feedbacks are so far very > positive and they all support the adoption of this document. I think that says > something. > > Best regards, > Haoyu > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com> > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 6:23 AM > To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>; opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>; > draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors <draft-song-opsawg-ifit- > framework.authors@ietf.org> > Cc: opsawg-chairs <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework- > 09 > > Haoyu, > > you and your co-authors need to decide what the document is intended to be: A > requirements document, an industry implementation survey, or a specification? > Right now the document is a bit of everything – with nothing is appropriately > spelled out and detailed for a standards document. > > Depending on that decision, here is how you could evolve the document: > If the document is intended as a requirements document: > - expand the requirements part of section 1 > - remove all references to iFIT and similar – none of this is needed to articulate > requirements If the document is intended as an industry survey: > - provide comprehensive inventory of available implementation > - focus on what is available / deployed and discuss experiences > - remove all references to iFIT and similar that try to specify things – none of > this is needed to for an industry survey If the document is intended as a > specification or case study > - provide technical specifications for IFIT node, IFIT application, IFIT Head > Node, IFIT End Node, etc. I.e. explain how these “things” work and operate. > What is their control plane, what is their data plane, etc.? Make sure that you’re > not creating “empty shells” that are to be defined at a later stage. An approach > to create forward references to currently non existing documents like “Other > documents might also be needed but they are out of scope of this one” (see > your message below) are not appropriate for a specification. > - if you believe that your IFIT specification has nothing to do with Huawei’s IFIT > proprietary implementation (i.e. > https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww- > ctc.huawei.com%2Fke%2Fpress-events%2Fnews%2F2019%2F6%2Ffirst-ifit- > pilot-5g-transport-network-beijing-unicom- > huawei&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C5247a6a8c > 2934f90f2e908d7848f0782%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0 > %7C637123622155305143&sdata=vlsft6Tj%2BuI2rH6NCdZO0qf2O7%2BR9 > KSI0b%2FF0bjEkoY%3D&reserved=0) then I strongly suggest that you > choose a different name for your implementation. > > Just to highlight that different from what you say, the specification of IFIT > elements neither helps in articulating requirements nor does it support different > industry solutions: If you take the example of an “IFIT Node” – there is a total of > 8 occurrences in the document, with 5 of them in the main part of the > document. The document defines “iFIT Node” as “a network node that is in an > iFIT domain and is capable of iFIT-specific functions”. None of the 5 occurrences > in the document is used for comparison or requirements definition, neither do > they detail what IFIT specific functions are carried out by an IFIT node. Reading > through the 5 occurrences, one learns that iFIT nodes seem to be configured by > a controller (what is a controller?), they seem to be able to do some form of > data collection (how?, what data?), they seem to be able to export data using > IPFIX and protobuf (what data is exported?), they seem to be able to cache data, > and they seem to contain DNP. Reading through this, I still don’t know what IFIT > Nodes are… Do they forward traffic? Do they process traffic? If so how? ... > > Just for reference, here are the 5 occurrences of “IFIT Node” I found in the main > part of the document: > - An iFIT application uses a controller to configure the iFIT nodes. > - After the telemetry data processing and analyzing, the iFIT application may > instruct the controller to modify the iFIT node configuration and affect the > future telemetry data collection. > - In addition to efficient export data encoding (e.g., IPFIX [RFC7011] or protobuf > [1]), iFIT nodes have several other ways to reduce the export data by taking > advantage of network device's capability and programmability. > - iFIT nodes can cache the data and send the accumulated data in batch if the > data is not time sensitive. > - The controller translates an intent and configure the corresponding DNPs in > iFIT nodes which collect necessary network information. > > Frank > > From: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Dezember 2019 02:09 > To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; opsawg > <opsawg@ietf.org>; draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors <draft-song- > opsawg-ifit-framework.authors@ietf.org> > Cc: opsawg-chairs <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework- > 09 > > Again, I need to point out the fact that I have listed all the questions raised > during the meeting (including Frank's and Joe's) and I asked if I missed anything > or misunderstood anything in an email to the list. But I didn't got any feedback > from the queationers, so I believed I had correctly understood the questions > and then made updates accordingly. So, I don't understand why Frank still use > the meeting video to question the draft. Please read and answer my email and > draft, and let me know what you are not agree with based on that. > > Alos, we have specified all the terms we used in the draft. Please take time to > read it. > > IFIT is NOT a proprietary solution. Period. I don't think anybody can gain such a > feeling from reading it. There's no solution but requirement, challenges, a high > level framework, examples, and standard gap analysis. How can it be a solution? > > > Other documents might also be needed but they are out of scope of this one. I > firmly believe this one is also needed for the reason we clearly stated in the > draft. > > Thanks! > > Haoyu > > > 获取 > https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms > %2Fghei36&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C5247a6 > a8c2934f90f2e908d7848f0782%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1% > 7C0%7C637123622155305143&sdata=JL2%2BLWYc04fnRBAOUcsUByjP6e > UFmD8KW6XbYiDGd0s%3D&reserved=0 > > ________________________________________ > 发件人: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <mailto:fbrockne@cisco.com> > 发送时间: 2019年12月18日星期三 下午1:01 > 收件人: opsawg; draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors > 抄送: opsawg-chairs > 主题: RE: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09 > > > 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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatra > cker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F106%2Fmaterials%2Fminutes-106-opsawg- > 01&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C5247a6a8c2934f > 90f2e908d7848f0782%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6 > 37123622155305143&sdata=1GNq52BxnTLejtyH17quH%2FaNHPodQS4Yuk > znPvQZq6w%3D&reserved=0) 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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.b > e%2FrY- > u8177wpU%3Ft%3D3785&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.co > m%7C5247a6a8c2934f90f2e908d7848f0782%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d55 > 91fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637123622155305143&sdata=X%2Fj2PSaoQSNFy1xT > FNjfhUwt4KXjJY8ol3oKYVG2UH8%3D&reserved=0) 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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.b > e%2FrY- > u8177wpU%3Ft%3D3867&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.co > m%7C5247a6a8c2934f90f2e908d7848f0782%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d55 > 91fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637123622155305143&sdata=A2UP99wRCzNTk9OP > ci0%2FLE3KvzQQD%2FBJJHPmfhVqh8c%3D&reserved=0 ) 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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww- > ctc.huawei.com%2Fke%2Fpress-events%2Fnews%2F2019%2F6%2Ffirst-ifit- > pilot-5g-transport-network-beijing-unicom- > huawei&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C5247a6a8c > 2934f90f2e908d7848f0782%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0 > %7C637123622155315140&sdata=btJwYOUGtJnA8RKntlXXV5F0Xsu4H7rVO > 5gacId%2FgYg%3D&reserved=0. 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 <mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Benoit Claise > Sent: Dienstag, 17. Dezember 2019 14:43 > To: Tianran Zhou <mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>; opsawg > <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors > <mailto:draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors@ietf.org> > Cc: opsawg-chairs <mailto:opsawg-chairs@ietf.org> > 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:bclaise@cisco.com> > 收件人: Tianran > Zhou<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>;opsawg<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>;dra > ft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.authors<mailto:draft-song-opsawg-ifit- > framework.authors@ietf.org> > 抄送: opsawg-chairs<mailto:opsawg-chairs@ietf.org> > 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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.y > outube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrY- > u8177wpU&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C5247a6 > a8c2934f90f2e908d7848f0782%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1% > 7C0%7C637123622155315140&sdata=qfSNeIXLJRJo1WRh40SUF0K76wU8p > i%2B5O1kIanyXXj8%3D&reserved=0. > > 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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatra > cker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-song-opsawg-ifit- > framework%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C524 > 7a6a8c2934f90f2e908d7848f0782%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7 > C1%7C0%7C637123622155315140&sdata=K5azjOJhUbN3NDUhuwbV92cxc > DKCPO9%2FubsdFBAObdY%3D&reserved=0 > > 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:OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ie > tf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fopsawg&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song > %40futurewei.com%7C5247a6a8c2934f90f2e908d7848f0782%7C0fee8ff2a3b2 > 40189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637123622155315140&sdata=GOk > 5SIXxkgomuo7yxv1p9Qs4%2BcfgRjEGN13j8q40zjo%3D&reserved=0 >
- [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-i… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Pedro Martinez-Julia
- [OPSAWG] 答复: WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… qinfengwei
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… 吴畏虹
- [OPSAWG] R: WG adoption call for draft-song-opsaw… Cociglio Mauro
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… 신종윤님
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… daniel
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… 진재환/팀장
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Lizhenbin
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Huaimo Chen
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Haoyu Song
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Benoit Claise
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Benoit Claise
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Haoyu Song
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Haoyu Song
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Haoyu Song
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Haoyu Song
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Haoyu Song
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsa… Haoyu Song