Re: [Supa] SUPA Update

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Diego,

Can you expand on the re-usability aspects.
What is being reused? the information model, the data model, something 
else? I hope more than the concepts.
What are you, yourself, reusing?

Regards, Benoit
> Hi Benoit,
>
> While I cannot talk for YANG module authors, and it is true that the 
> WG has a significant delay in its deliverables, I ‘d like to stress 
> that SUPA has produced reusable work that is being used elsewhere, and 
> a closing of the group before it finishes its commitments would damage 
> these other works. I am directly involved in the I2NSF WG (that is 
> progressing quite well in my opinion), and in several collaborative 
> European projects related with 5G and security, including a number of 
> network operators that are experimenting with SUPA-based policy 
> statements. And I am aware of the ONUG interest as well, though not 
> being involved I cannot detail what they are targeting now.
>
> So I would ask you to reconsider the decision of closing SUPA at IETF 99.
>
> Be goode,
>
>> On 15 Jun 2017, at 14:46 , Benoit Claise <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> After the last IETF, I put a calendar reminder on June 16th to decide 
>> on the next steps for SUPA.
>> This is inline with the our previous meeting minutes, so it should 
>> not come as a surprise.
>> Granted, this is one day earlier than foreseen, but the IESG agenda 
>> coordination call takes place today, and it was important from a 
>> scheduling point of view to understand if SUPA would meet. The chairs 
>> informed me that no SUPA meeting is required in Prague. That 
>> triggered this discussion, just one day earlier.
>>
>> Our meeting minutes: 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/supa/current/msg01612.html
>>
>>     At the SUPA WG at IETF 98 (Tuesday, 28 March) we discussed the
>>     progress of the WG.  Benoit (our AD) summed up the situation, pointing
>>     out that our drafts are not updated very frequently, and that the SUPA
>>     mailing list has been very quiet between meetings.
>>
>>     At the meeting the authors of the SUPA Information model and the SUPA
>>     Data Model drafts said that those drafts should be ready for WG Last
>>     Call by 1 June, so that they could be sent to IESG for approval by
>>     about 1 July.
>>
>>     After summing up the pros and cons for SUPA continuing, Benoit
>>     concluded by saying that the WG will be closed at IETF 99 (Prague, 16
>>     July) unless there is substantive progress on the Information Model
>>     and especially on the Data Model drafts by one month before the Prague
>>     meeting.  'Substantive progress' here means seeing comments on and/or
>>     reviews of these drafts demonstrating that people - outside the small
>>     group of authors - have carefully read the drafts, or better, that they
>>     are actually using SUPA's Information and Data Models.
>>
>> I've been watching the list.
>> Since the last IETF meeting, we received two new drafts ...
>>
>>     draft-ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model-03.txt
>>         draft-ietf-supa-generic-policy-data-model-03.txt
>>
>> ... and some draft reviews:
>>
>>         [e-mail] on on
>>         draft-ietf-supa-policy-based-management-framework:
>>
>>             Good feedback but it seems like only editorial to me.
>>
>>         Tony [e-mail] on draft-cheng-supa-applicability:
>>
>>             Some editorial comments and three technical ones:
>>
>>             1.       I wonder the meaning of section 3, the part
>>             copied from framework draft, may not be needed.
>>
>>             2.       I suggest to replace the title of 4.2.2.and
>>             4.2.3 with detailed information instead of writing just
>>             Example 1 / 2.
>>
>>             3.     The writer wrote “We will define "edgeInterface"
>>             role and "EnterpriseDomain" later in  this note” but I
>>             failed to find the explanation for these two term.
>>
>>             Benoit => it's more like one technical comment, the last one.
>>
>>
>>         Haining Wang: [e-mail] on
>>         draft-ietf-supa-generic-policy-data-model-03:
>>
>>             I understand that the GPIM YANG model provides an example
>>             of how to convert IM to DM (for general policy), and
>>             John’s SNMP blocking example
>>             (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/supa/DWEzaSBK6KBdsmQ0FE2-eypTzeY)
>>             exposes some details. But I am sorry that the whole
>>             picture is still not clear to me. It would be nice if the
>>             ECA Data Model part can explain in more details.
>>
>>         March Blanchet on
>>         draft-ietf-supa-policy-based-management-framework:
>>
>>             - larger comment: I’m not sure what to do with this
>>             document. It looks like a large wish list of features. I
>>             guess I’m probably too used to implementation/protocol
>>             details. I guess I will wait until to see the actual
>>             protocol/yang models. 
>>
>>
>> Let's analyze the situation:
>> I don't consider those reviews (btw a single one the DM, none on the 
>> IM) as "substantive progress".
>> I don't see interest from YANG module authors, ready to reuse the 
>> SUPA YANG constructs.
>> Being a year late according to the charter milestones, the window of 
>> opportunity to produce reusable work has been closing rapidly.
>> I believe that SUPA had multiple chances to make it happen, and 
>> failed to deliver.
>> With this in mind, I don't see how I should conclude anything else 
>> than this WG will be closing at IETF 99.
>>
>> Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)
>>>
>>> Dear supa’rs,
>>>
>>> We have cancelled our formal meeting in Prague. This decision was 
>>> taken based on a proposed plan to focus effort on completing the 
>>> existing WG items and prepare for closure of the supa working group 
>>> sometime between IETF 99 and 100. A plan that is yet to be approved 
>>> by Benoit.
>>>
>>> During the last working group meeting Benoit stated:
>>>
>>> “the WG will be closed at IETF 99 (Prague, 16 July) unless there is 
>>> substantive progress on the Information Model and especially on the 
>>> Data Model draft by one month before the Prague meeting.”
>>>
>>> The authors of the Data Model and Information Model I-Ds did submit 
>>> new versions but we only received one review. However, Nevil and I 
>>> are working with the IM and DM authors to gather reviewers in 
>>> preparation of Last Call. Essentially, we are working to prep folks 
>>> who would be able to review the documents we Last Call, ideally 
>>> these should be from policy/yang implementers.
>>>
>>> The Framework I-D has also received a review which is positive, and 
>>> I am in the process of reviewing the document myself to also help 
>>> prepare the document for Last Call. Additionally, the Applicability 
>>> I-D (a non-working group document) received a review which is also 
>>> useful.
>>>
>>> We have also seen notifications from other SDOs following supa, 
>>> specifically:
>>>
>>> - ONUG: Investigating I2NSF combined with the SUPA data model and 
>>> framework
>>>
>>> - ETSI Experiential Networked Intelligence (ENI): New initiative 
>>> defining context aware networking systems, SUPA was identified as a 
>>> key building block
>>>
>>> - MEF Open Lifecycle Service Orchestrator (LSO): Using SUPA between 
>>> functional components
>>>
>>> However, the indication from ONUG, ETSI and MEF does not materially 
>>> change the situation of SUPA but it does demonstrate wider interest 
>>> in our work, and at least some responsibility for supa/IETF to 
>>> complete it (if possible). If you are aware of near-term 
>>> implementations now is the time to highlight them.
>>>
>>> Again, we felt we did not need a WG meeting in Prague to progress 
>>> the working group I-Ds, and given the IETF agenda coordination call 
>>> (is today) we had to cancel the supa WG session request ASAP, and 
>>> unfortunately before we had a chance to communicate the current 
>>> situation to the rest of the working group. Apologies for any 
>>> surprise when you saw the cancellation notification, and the lack of 
>>> opportunity for wider discussion.
>>>
>>> As mentioned our proposed plan has been submitted to Benoit and is 
>>> yet to be approved, therefore we will wait for his thoughts and 
>>> ultimate decision.
>>>
>>> The SUPA Chairs would sincerely like to thank everyone for their 
>>> participation and especially the authors of I-Ds for their efforts.
>>>
>>> BR, Nevil and Dan.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SUPA mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
>
> --
> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
>
> Dr Diego R. Lopez
> Telefonica I+D
> http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/
>
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> Tel:    [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
> ----------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su 
> destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y 
> es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es 
> usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, 
> utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar 
> prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este 
> mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por 
> esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
>
> The information contained in this transmission is privileged and 
> confidential information intended only for the use of the individual 
> or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the 
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. 
> If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. 
> Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this 
> communication in error and then delete it.
>
> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu 
> destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é 
> para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa 
> senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, 
> utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida 
> em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, 
> rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e 
> proceda a sua destruição