----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan Hares" <[email protected]> To: "'t.petch'" <[email protected]>; "'Jeffrey Haas'" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "'Edward Crabbe'" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 4:16 PM
> Jeff: <snip> > 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. Sue Yes, you have 10 minutes of time allocated two hours into a two and a half hour session; good luck:-) Tom Petch > > 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
