Re: [Supa] SUPA Update

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

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.
>