Jeff: I like, Tom would like to know what the status of the i2rs use-case work?
The following will be presented at IETF individually: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-white-i2rs-use-case/ These use cases provide the distributed reaction to network attacks, remote service routing (hub spoke), within data center routing, and temporary overlays. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases/ This has been proposed for the BGP handling case to retrieve information on the errors, topologies and flowspec, BGP Events, and statistics. I2RS could also push information to allow the pushing customer cost communities, flow-spec routes, new filters for legacy routes, optimize exit control (via existing policy or PBR). I am presenting these following of these as a group for my co-authors: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huang-i2rs-mpls-te-usecases/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-i2rs-mpls-ldp-usecases/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ji-i2rs-usecases-ccne-service/ (centralized controller) http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-i2rs-ts-use-case/ (traffic steering) This grouping provides a general framework service layer routing improvements to hub-and-spoke the i2rs charter requests based on a virtual networks/virtual connections (draft-hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc), utilizing a centralized controller (draft-i2rs-usecases-ccne-service), mpls-te links (draft-huang-i2rs-mpls-te-usecases), mpls ldp (draft-chen-i2rs-mpls-ldp-usecases), and traffic Steering (draft-chen-i2rs-ts-use-case). My co-authors and I seek feedback on these use cases. My co-authors and I would love to chat about the mobile backhaul use case: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-i2rs-mbb-usecases/ but since it is not specifically on the charter, I suspect you and Ed will need to rule if can be discussed on the list. If it is not, please let me know. It is important to get the use cases for these deployments down so we can adequately discuss the information models. Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of t.petch Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:18 AM To: Jeffrey Haas Cc: [email protected]; Edward Crabbe Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 89 agenda published ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Haas" <[email protected]> To: "t.petch" <[email protected]> Cc: "Edward Crabbe" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:32 PM > Tom, > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:20:17PM +0000, t.petch wrote: > > It seems a shame that use cases comes last, since, as Alia said > > recently, > > > > "If you were to look at our charter, unsurprisingly we have use-cases to > > be > > completed before information models. I would strongly encourage > > discussion of the use-case drafts and serious work on turning them > > into something > > that > > the working group could accept." > > > > My own take is to wait for use cases to progress before taking a serious > > interest in, e.g., architecture and info model. > > As I've been coming up to speed on the documents in the work group and the > mail archives, the use cases vary from very well discussed to very light > discussion. The ones that have received good discussion also tend to have > related info model documents. > > Since I've been digesting the use case documents in bulk, it's pretty clear > that a number of common requirements can be extracted from them. Thus, > where the documents appear to be in terms of maturity is some need of > editing and refinement to attempt to make those common requirements > explicitly visible across the document set. Much of that work is for the > mailing list. Some of the use cases are a bit more novel in terms of the > likely fallout of their requirements and deserve more group discussion. > > In terms of simply keeping the WG pipeline full, it's definitely time to > start spending some cycles on data model language and protocol. While it's > certainly possible that as the use case documents are refined that they'll > reveal additional requirements, my hope is that they're not disruptive > discoveries. Clearly it's a finish-to-finish dependency relationship. > > Meanwhile, I'm sure the use case authors would appreciate as much help as we > can give them to drive the documents to completion. :-) Jeff I find the use case documents a very mixed bag. I note that the rib info model cites the white and hares use case I-Ds, which suggests to me that they should be adopted by the WG (or else dropped:-( I note that the mbb usecases, which I find the most persuasive, regards the info model as inadequate, which, again, says to me this should either be a WG document, or else declared out of scope for the info model at this time. Discussions last year seemed to stall at times over what the use cases should be and I would find it hard to know whether or not the info model was adequate without knowing what the use cases were. So I think that the WG needs a view on which of the many use case I-Ds is relevant to the current work. I find the protocol issues less pressing, perhaps because the IETF has been round that block so many times before. The genesis of e.g. PCEP seemed a relatively straghtforward birth, compared to, say, the data modelling work of e.g. netmod or, delving into the past, SMI. Tom Petch > -- Jeff (not currenty speaking as a chair, just someone who's done some > amount of project management) > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
