Re: [Supa] SUPA Update

"xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn" <xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn> Wed, 21 June 2017 02:16 UTC

Return-Path: <xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn>
X-Original-To: supa@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: supa@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D961296C9; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UkIFt_E2lz4r; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F3312957A; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.188:48920.1981818840
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-219.142.69.75 (unknown [172.18.0.188]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with ESMTP id A8AD32800C4; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:15:55 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ip<219.142.69.75> ([172.18.0.188]) by App0023 with ESMTP id b1f0f99a-8566-4928-9ac8-5e6fcb2bf19e for bclaise@cisco.com; Wed Jun 21 10:16:11 2017
0/X-Total-Score: 0:
X-Real-From: xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.188
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:15:51 +0800
From: "xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn" <xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn>
To: bclaise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "King, Daniel" <d.king@lancaster.ac.uk>, supa <supa@ietf.org>
Cc: "ops-ads@ietf.org" <ops-ads@ietf.org>, "supa-chairs@ietf.org" <supa-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A942C73B2@EX-0-MB2.lancs.local>, <666784c3-d4df-9fa1-9661-d8e182e2c7da@cisco.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 8, 379[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2017062110155138677515@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart074765005788_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/supa/R2dQ52aEwrkPd4kKkWqOW8cn8dE>
Subject: Re: [Supa] SUPA Update
X-BeenThere: supa@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is to discuss SUPA \(Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions\) related issues." <supa.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/supa>, <mailto:supa-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/supa/>
List-Post: <mailto:supa@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:supa-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa>, <mailto:supa-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:16:25 -0000

hi, Beonit.

Sorry to see this email. We don’t want to see SUPA closing right now as we just finished our trial of address management framework which may need SUPA policy to guide the policy part.
As far as we are concerned, our goal is to develop a policy module that guides address management. The policy module defines the control logic (policies), and should be separated from implementation details so that they can be configured or adjusted through open interface.
 
SUPA WG defines uniform formats and models for policies, serves as the foundation for policy-based control across different system components, and enables automation. We believe the model-based method could potentially avoid manual intervention and reduce our OPEX.

Thank you!

Chongfeng



xiechf@ctbri.com.cn
 
From: Benoit Claise
Date: 2017-06-15 20:46
To: King, Daniel; SUPA list
CC: ops-ads@ietf.org; supa-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Supa] SUPA Update
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:
gunter.wang@ericsson.com on on draft-ietf-supa-policy-based-management-framework: Good feedback but it seems like only editorial to me.
Tony tianxu@chinamobile.com 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: 18901341229@189.cn 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.