Hi Toerless, We’ll provide you a 20-mins slot in RTGWG Wednesday session. Would you please provide some details/pointers about your presentation? I need to update the agenda with the info so people have time to read up.
Thanks, Yingzhen From: rtgwg <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 4:14 PM To: Toerless Eckert <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>, 陈双龙( 00419335) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Lizhenbin <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Guyunan <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: RTGWG-chairs: slot for RTGWG@109 to present on GRASP ? (was: Re: draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol (was: Re: IETF 105 mic comments on draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol)) Toerless, We will provide a slot, most likely during the 2nd meeting. Please send an email to RTGWG with a short intro so people who might be interested have the time read up. Thanks! Cheers, Jeff On Nov 10, 2020, 11:48 AM -0800, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>, wrote: I'd like to underline what Toerless said. I looked at the two use casess in the protocol-assisted-protocol draft and they seem very easy to map onto GRASP. I don't really have time before the meeting to do that but they are certainly use cases we could have included in the original use case BOF that led to ANIMA. Regards Brian Carpenter On 11-Nov-20 05:57, Toerless Eckert wrote: In followup to the discuss on draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol: Checking RTGWG agenda, it seems you might still have time available, so if you are interested, i would be happy to whip up a few slides to five an overview of GRASP and how we imagine it to be useable to automate operational workflows for various services, including routing protocols. Cheers Toerless In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 05:52:35PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote: I see subject draft is again on the agenda of RTGWG'109 and the authors also asked for a slot to present to ANIMA (which we would be happy to have, time permitting). Some thoughts as contributor, maybe ANIMA chair: Reading the draft it looks like a reinvention of the ANIMA GRASP protocol that we finished almost 3 years ago, but without many of the mechanisms that make GRASP a well reuseable, easily extensible protocol. So i wonder why we would want to also do another more imited protocol for the same goals. On the mike RTGWG @IETF105, interest was raised to see a more comprehensive signalling enxchange example. Version 03 of the document seems to have expanded the BGP example a bit, but still not comprehensive enough for me to understand if/how this approach would ultimately work. I would like to encourage the authors to concentrate on fully specifying intended use-cases - ideally by simply specifying the use-case as solution using GRASP (we call this GRASP objectives). I am sure ANIMA participants (including me) would be happy to help explaining how to specify such a protocol on top of GRASP once we understand the use-case. Cheers Toerless On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:02:31AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: To repeat my comments from the microphone regarding this draft: We already have per-protocol operational and configuration state via the IETF yang models for a given protocol. We also have mechanisms to fetch operational state for such protocols; e.g. netconf and restconf. Rather than inventing a new mechanism to do troubleshooting for a protocol, I'd suggest it makes better sense to augment existing IETF yang models to include RPCs for interacting with troubleshooting for that protocol. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg -- --- [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
