Re: [Supa] Information models and Data models - WG adoption?

[Zhoutianran <[e-mail]>]

> 1. A good way to answer that is with several other questions, e.g.: "Before
> YANG there was what?" "After YANG there will be what?" "From the broader
> marketplace perspective, how many other non-YANG approaches to DM expression
> must/should be supported?"

If YANG DM is not the only derivable DM in this WG, I would like to withdraw this question.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Natale, Bob [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 3:26 PM
> To: Zhoutianran; [e-mail]
> Cc: SUPA list
> Subject: RE: [Supa] Information models and Data models - WG adoption?
> 
> Hi Tianran,
> 
> From a distant lurker (calibrate accordingly)....
> 
> From some of your other posts, I believe you already know the answers to
> your questions below, so please don't consider my responses here to be a
> sign of disrespect ... but I hate to see such questions left dangling, so
> just to close the loop, so to speak:
> 
> 1. A good way to answer that is with several other questions, e.g.: "Before
> YANG there was what?" "After YANG there will be what?" "From the broader
> marketplace perspective, how many other non-YANG approaches to DM expression
> must/should be supported?"
> 
> 2. Established knowledge. RFC 3444, for a start.
> 
> 3. See #1 and #2 above.
> 
> While it is often pragmatically utilitarian for the IETF to take a narrow
> view about WHAT to standardize -- i.e., such an approach often has a positive
> ROI for all concerned -- such is not the case for policy-based management,
> given the relative offsets from state-of-practice to need. However (while
> this is not my position), it is reasonable to suggest that in such cases
> the IETF should decline to pursue the requisite standards and hand that
> task off to some other SDO. That's a more reasonable position when it is
> NOT accompanied by a decision to pursue yet-another-niche-solution (YANS)
> in the interim. In the PBM case, it is the plethora of YANS in the absence
> of a general model that is now an equal contributor (along with the nature
> of the beast itself)  to the complexity of finding a more general solution.
> (Note that "more general" does not equate to a "universal" solution ...
> solution scope should be slightly problem space and marketplace driven
> however.)
> 
> As Juergen has noted since I started composing this post, the more general
> solution adds a time delay relative to the possibility of any viable discrete
> solution. However, if my assertion that each new such discrete solution
> merely adds to both the need for and the difficulty of designing the more
> general solution is true, then ... well, you can do the math for yourself.
> 
> Avanti,
> BobN
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Supa [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zhoutianran
> Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 10:49 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: SUPA list <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Supa] Information models and Data models - WG adopion?
> 
> Hi Jason,
> 
> >As for the information model versus data model discussion, I think that
> an information model is required to allow for different data models to follow
> a common structure.
> 
> >The architecture document would define the role of the information
> >model clearly
> 
> I would very like to see this been discussed and addressed in the architecture
> document.
> Especially,
> 1. How the information model can help data model generation if we know we
> will deliver YANG DMs? I mean on one hand we can improve the information
> model, then generate a YANG DM; on the other hand, we can just work on a
> YANG DMs and improve it. What's the difference?
> 2. What should be defined in IM, what in DM. Best with some examples. After
> all, IM cannot be used in a system implementation, we need DMs.
> 3. We can define a YANG DM with "augment", "grouping-use", or design items
> with "type-value" pair. So that there will be generic DM and specific DM.
> Then how can IM be more for DM.
> 
> If those could be address, I think that will be much help.
> 
> Best,
> Tianran
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason Coleman (colemaj) [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > colemaj
> > Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 1:28 AM
> > To: King, Daniel; Bert Wijnen (IETF); Joel M. Halpern; Andy Bierman;
> > John Strassner; Zhoutianran
> > Cc: Nevil Brownlee; SUPA list
> > Subject: Re: [Supa] Information models and Data models - WG adopion?
> >
> > I would like to be part of working on an architecture document as well.
> >
> > As for the information model versus data model discussion, I think
> > that an information model is required to allow for different data
> > models to follow a common structure.
> > It is possible to create a data model first, but that data model may
> > not fit in well with other data models.  This is why the information
> > model exists to allow for things that may extend that data model or
> > are in place for other data models.
> >
> > At this time the focus is on Event, Condition, Action, but there will
> > be further management structures to define.
> > The information model supports a general structure and then provides
> > details on ECA.  That general structure is important for future data models
> as well.
> > Those may be YANG or other people may chose to use the information
> > model to create a data model in a different way.
> >
> > The architecture document would define the role of the information
> > model clearly, which I think that part of the ID that John, Joel, and
> > I worked on attempts to do as well, and then can show how the data
> > models will be supported by the information model and what else the WG
> > Charter has defined and possibly where we go next.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/4/16, 7:34 AM, "Supa on behalf of King, Daniel"
> > <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > >Hi Bert,
> > >
> > >Thank for taking the initiative. We can make sure there is time on
> > >the
> > agenda for the I-D.
> > >
> > >BR, Dan.
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > >Sent: 04 March 2016 10:11
> > >To: King, Daniel <[e-mail]>; Joel M. Halpern
> > ><[e-mail]>; Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>; John
> > >Strassner <[e-mail]>; Zhoutianran
> > ><[e-mail]>
> > >Cc: Nevil Brownlee <[e-mail]>; SUPA list
> > ><[e-mail]>
> > >Subject: Re: [Supa] Information models and Data models - WG adopion?
> > >
> > >On 03/03/16 17:41, King, Daniel wrote:
> > >> Hi  All.
> > >>
> > >> We have a placeholder in the SUPA Charter for:
> > >>
> > >> 1) An explanation of the scope of the policy-based management
> > >> framework
> > and how it relates to existing work of the IETF.
> > >>
> > >> A proposal for this document has not been forthcoming thus far. It
> > >> would
> > seem that a "Policy-based Management Framework" discussing
> > architecture, applicability and relationships ("system overview")
> > would be reasonable content for a framework document mentioned in the
> Charter?
> > >>
> > >> Furthermore, Andy, Tianran and Bert all seem willing to support
> > development (via direct contributions) for the framework/architecture
> > document?
> > >Dan, I am willing to take initiative on this.
> > >
> > >I saw in one of Johns postings:
> > >    Well, we don't have an architecture document currently in our charter
> > >    (though I would support amending the charter to include this). In
> the
> > >    (now expired) proposition draft (which we are now working on to
> reissue),
> > >    there was an exemplary architecture.
> > >
> > >John, do you have the piece of text in an XML file (I-D source file)
> > >and
> > if so, can you send that to me. I assume you are OK with us using that
> > as a starting point?
> > >
> > >Dan/Nevil, if we submit an in initial I-D timely, do you think we can
> > >spend
> > some time on it in our IETF95 session?
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Bert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> BR, Dan.
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Supa [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bert Wijnen
> > >> (IETF)
> > >> Sent: 03 March 2016 16:13
> > >> To: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>; Andy Bierman
> > >> <[e-mail]>; John Strassner <[e-mail]>
> > >> Cc: Zhoutianran <[e-mail]>; Nevil Brownlee
> > >> <[e-mail]>; SUPA list <[e-mail]>
> > >> Subject: Re: [Supa] Information models and Data models - WG adopion?
> > >>
> > >> Inline
> > >>
> > >> On 03/03/16 16:48, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > >>> Two separate but related quesitons.
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) Can you help use find the places where the model / text is too
> > >>> implementation specific?  There are a few places where in
> > >>> describing enumerations the model calls for integers.  In the
> > >>> mapping to YANG, I
> > have already started replacing those with Enumerations.  Are there
> > other kinds of over-specificity?
> > >>>
> > >>> 2) The charter allows for a range of implementations of the SUPA
> > >>> system.  Folks may recall I asked in the room at the last meeting
> > >>> whether our chartered allowd both communication between a control
> > >>> system and a device, and communication between a policy repository
> > >>> and
> > a policy engine.  I was told by the AD that the chartered allowed
> > both.  This does make it rather interesting to define the "architecture".
> > >> Mmmm... both concurrently, or did he mean that we as a WG can make
> > >> a
> > choice what we prefer and standardize that?
> > >> If we do both concurrently or a longside each other, can we then
> > >> still
> > guarantee interoperability (which I think is one of our main
> > objctives, no)?
> > >>> 2') I do think that there are a few places in the model,
> > >>> particularly with regard to policy execution status, where the
> > >>> model
> > makes some assumptions about the structure of policy delivery.  For
> > the most part, those should be removed.  Assistance in finding
> > >>> them is appreciated.  I suspect that some of them are necessary,
> > >>> and
> > those should be explicitly described.   (And we should make
> > >>> sure the working group agrees with the assumptions.)
> > >>>
> > >>> 3) (minor) The charter permits the information model.  I presume
> > >>> we could
> > amend the charter to permit an architecture document.
> > >>>
> > >> I would say an "Architecture" or "System Overview" document would
> > >> be
> > a good thing.
> > >>
> > >> Bert
> > >>> Yours,
> > >>> Joel
> > >>>
> > >>> On 3/3/16 10:27 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
> > >>>> Very good and practical question raised by Andy!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Bert
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 03/03/16 06:06, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM, John Strassner
> > >>>>> <[e-mail]
> > >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      We should work on an information model for several reasons,
> > >>>>> even
> > if
> > >>>>>      there is only target data model (i.e., YANG):
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>        1) An information model can define how data are related to
> each
> > >>>>>           other independent of implementation. This is much
> > >>>>> harder to
> > do
> > >>>>>           in YANG. Hence, the information model may make these inherent
> > >>>>>           relationships easier to visualize and define.
> > >>>>>        2) An information model separates the logical design from the
> > >>>>>           physical design of the system, enabling a deeper
> > understanding
> > >>>>>           of both independent of implementation. This can be used
> to
> > >>>>>           produce more powerful implementations.
> > >>>>>        3) If an information model is worked on in another organization,
> > >>>>>           there is no guarantee that its output will be useful to
> the
> > >>>>>           IETF. I am active in the TM Forum, which you cited; they
> are
> > >>>>>           in general not worried about implementing YANG models, much
> > >>>>>           less producing optimal YANG models.
> > >>>>>        4) This enables other SDOs and fora, which do not use YANG,
> to
> > >>>>>           more easily understand our output.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It seems to me that your draft has many details related to the
> > >>>>> abstraction of policy logic, but also many aspects that look
> > >>>>> like implementation details.
> > >>>>> Perhaps it can be simplified if the implementation details were
> > removed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I am more interested in the SUPA Architecture document first.
> > >>>>> I don't see how we can agree on an info-model in the absence of
> > >>>>> a system architecture.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Does SUPA run anywhere? What does it even mean to implement SUPA?
> > >>>>> Will people be able to build interoperable SUPA engines from the
> RFCs?
> > >>>>> Is there a difference between a SUPA engine running at the
> > >>>>> device level or the controller level?  What data is available
> > >>>>> for policy enforcement analysis?
> > >>>>> Is this configurable through YANG modules implemented by a SUPA
> engine?
> > >>>>> How are policies defined and managed within the SUPA implementation?
> > >>>>> How is device config altered to implement policy?
> > >>>>> How are device operational state and statistics used to verify
> > >>>>> policy implementation?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> A precise description of policy logic might be a good thing to have.
> > >>>>> I am not objecting to an info model doc.  A system architecture
> > >>>>> and a workable solution will require a lot more than that.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      John
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Andy
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>      From: Supa [mailto:[e-mail]
> > >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Zhoutianran
> > >>>>>      Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 7:29 PM
> > >>>>>      To: Nevil Brownlee
> > >>>>>      Cc: SUPA list
> > >>>>>      Subject: Re: [Supa] Information models and Data models - WG
> > adopion?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      Hi Nevil,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      I am not arguing information model is useless, but it can
> > >>>>> be worked out in other organizations if necessary, e.g. TMF.
> > >>>>>      If in SUPA we can worked on YANG data models directly, why
> > >>>>> we firstly work on an information model and then translate it to
> > >>>>>      YANG data model?
> > >>>>>      It just not makes sense to me.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      Tianran
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      > -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>      > From: Supa [mailto:[e-mail]
> > >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Nevil Brownlee
> > >>>>>      > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 6:56 AM
> > >>>>>      > To: Zhoutianran
> > >>>>>      > Cc: SUPA list
> > >>>>>      > Subject: Re: [Supa] Information models and Data models -
> > >>>>> WG adopion?
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      > Hi Tianran:
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      > In my experiences, having a well-defined information
> > >>>>> model is a good starting
> > >>>>>      > point.  It allows different implementations, each of
> > >>>>> which can develop it's
> > >>>>>      > own data model - in other words, the information model is
> > >>>>> a good unifying
> > >>>>>      > influence - which is why publishing such a document is
> > >>>>> the second of our
> > >>>>>      > chart items.  I hope that getting a good data model will
> > >>>>> help us with the
> > >>>>>      > first chart item ("scope of the policy-based management
> > >>>>> framework").
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      > draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model is the
> > >>>>> only
> > SUPA
> > >>>>>      > information model that's had any work done on it since
> > >>>>> IETF 95, therefore
> > >>>>>      > I've proposed it for WG adoption.
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      > As for the third charter item - "set of YANG data
> > >>>>> models", there are two
> > >>>>>      > of these on the SUPA documents page.  It would help at
> > >>>>> this stage if their
> > >>>>>      > authors could comment on this list about the status of
> > >>>>> these drafts.  In
> > >>>>>      > particular, jave they been working on a new version?
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      > Overall, we really need more discussion on the list of
> > >>>>> what's happening
> > >>>>>      > with the SUPA work!
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      > Cheers, Nevil
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      > On 1/03/16 6:13 pm, Zhoutianran wrote:
> > >>>>>      > > If this is a poll for WG adoption, I would say not support.
> > >>>>>      > >
> > >>>>>      > > If we want to finally generate YANG data models here,
> > >>>>> why do we spend
> > >>>>>      > time working on this information model?
> > >>>>>      > >
> > >>>>>      > > Why not focus on the ECA YANG data model directly as
> > >>>>> standard track?
> > >>>>>      > >
> > >>>>>      > >
> > >>>>>      > > Tianran
> > >>>>>      > >
> > >>>>>      > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>      > >> From: Supa [mailto:[e-mail]
> > >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of IETF
> > >>>>>      > >> Secretariat
> > >>>>>      > >> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:35 AM
> > >>>>>      > >> To:
> > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > >>>>>
> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> > >>>>>      > >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> > >>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > >>>>>      > >> Subject: [Supa] The SUPA WG has placed
> > >>>>>      > >> draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model in
> > >>>>> state "Call For
> > >>>>>      > >> Adoption By WG Issued"
> > >>>>>      > >>
> > >>>>>      > >>
> > >>>>>      > >> The SUPA WG has placed
> > >>>>> draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model
> > >>>>>      > >> in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by
> > >>>>> Nevil
> > >>>>> Brownlee)
> > >>>>>      > >>
> > >>>>>      > >> The document is available at
> > >>>>>      > >>
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-
> > >>>>>      > >> i
> > >>>>>      > >> nfo-model/
> > >>>>>      > >>
> > >>>>>      > >>
> > >>>>>      > >> Comment:
> > >>>>>      > >> This is the first of our charter documents, the other
> > >>>>> charter items
> > >>>>>      > >> build on this
> > >>>>>      > >>
> > >>>>>      > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>      > >> Supa mailing list
> > >>>>>      > >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > >>>>>      > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      > --
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>      >   Nevil Brownlee                          Computer Science
> > >>>>> Department
> > >>>>>      >   Phone: [phone] x88941             The University of
> > >>>>> Auckland
> > >>>>>      >   FAX: [phone]   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New
> > >>>>> Zealand
> > >>>>>      >
> > >>>>>      > _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>      > Supa mailing list
> > >>>>>      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > >>>>>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>      Supa mailing list
> > >>>>>      [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > >>>>>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>      Supa mailing list
> > >>>>>      [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > >>>>>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> Supa mailing list
> > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Supa mailing list
> > >>>> [e-mail]
> > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> > >>>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Supa mailing list
> > >>> [e-mail]
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Supa mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Supa mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> > >>
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Supa mailing list
> > >[e-mail]
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Supa mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa