Re: [Supa] SUPA Update

[Ying Cheng <[e-mail]>]

Dear Benoit,

We are focusing on the update of applicability draft based on the valuable comments received during Chicago meeting. Current use cases in applicability draft come from the real service scenarios of operators and SUPA IM and DM are potential and valuable to support them as policy based mechanism. 

I am grateful for your continuous help and suggestion for creation and progress of SUPA. Hasty closure of this working group will cut off the half-done promising standardization work, which is a huge waste of time and effort. I would like to ask for your reconsideration on this significant decision.

BR,
Ying


2017-06-20 



Ying CHENG  程莹
Technology Department, China Unicom 中国联通集团技术部
Tel: [phone]
Mobile: [phone] 



发件人： Benoit Claise 
发送时间： 2017-06-15  20:46:49 
收件人： King, Daniel; SUPA list 
抄送： [e-mail]; [e-mail] 
主题： 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:

[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.