Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-bess-01-02: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bess/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are two bulleted lists that suggest scope: list-1 per the text after “in particular, the working group will work on the following services” and list-2 per the text after “the following is a list of specific aspects that the WG is expected to work on”. -- can something be in scope per list-1, but not list-2? -- per list-2, is something is only a work item “expected to work on” does this list of work unbounded? ** Per “In particular, the working group will work on the following services: … BGP-enabled IP VPN solutions … for supporting unicast and multicast provider-provisioned L3VPNs”, what is the actual work? Is it extensions on existing “BGP-enabled IP VPN solutions”? Same question for “… BGP-enabled L2VPN”? ** Per “The WG will focus primarily on producing BGP specifications for services in its charter. The WG will work on informational documents only related to operational and deployment aspects of the services for which the WG is also producing the protocols’ specifications”, the second sentence makes a explicit reference document status. What does it imply about the “BGP specifications”, they cannot be information? Experimental? They must be PS? ** Per the list-2 items, I have some confusing on the framing these bullets when trying to understand the output they produce. For example: -- “(a) BGP signaling related to the discovery of service endpoints” vs. “the exchange of service routes and their provisioning”. The first seems to suggest a BGP extension, what is the second making? Is it not “BGP signaling”? -- “(c) Scaling and convergence improvements”, how? What would be the output? Is this a protocol extension to some existing work? As part of enhancing and maintaining the services that the WG has specified, the following is a list of specific aspects that the WG is expected to work on: ** Per “e) Definition of YANG data models for device provisioning and operations”: -- Does the WG really have the capacity to take on this YANG module work? I observe that the WG planned to do YANG module work with milestones suggesting completion in 2020: Dec 2020 Submit a Yang or SMI datamodel for RFC4364 to IESG as PS draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang Dec 2020 Submit a YANG datamodel for L2VPN to IESG as PS draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang Dec 2020 Submit a YANG datamodel for mVPN to IESG as PS draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-yang Dec 2020 Submit a Yang or SMI datamodel for E-VPN to IESG as PS draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang However, all four of these documents are expired for multiple years. -- What specific YANG modules is the WG considering? ** Per list items (g) and (h): -- they include the text, documents “… that are already adopted at the time of this charter revision”. Instead, please just explicitly list the documents. I don’t understand which documents this text is referencing. -- does the scope suggested by (g) and (h) limited only to the already adopted documents (how I understood the text) OR will future document be coming? ** Per “OAM mechanisms related to services within the scope of the WG may be considered, following coordination with the Working Groups responsible for the underlying data plane technologies”, does this make OAM specifications in scope? Should that be in list-2? ** There are no milestones associated with this larger scope. Please add some. Minimally, there are 20 already adopted drafts which have no milestones. Why not? _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
