From: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Saturday, September 27, 2014 at 6:16 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports?
Acee: I’m confused by this email thread because these slides state the authors are looking for co-authors for netmod drafts. Are you as the co-chair of OSPF declaring consensus on the OSPF yang model draft? Yes – and there are now multi-vendor design teams in place. Would you point me to the email that indicates the WG Adoption call and conclusion? We haven’t adopted yet in OSPF. ISIS adoption is in progress. I already searched the proceedings for the presentations. Note that the list archives offer a search capability… Anyway, here is the ISIS message: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg/current/msg03679.html The drafts I suggested are I2RS drafts for the I2RS datastore that allow it to configure the routing agent directly. The only way these two drafts interact is if the option 4 proposed by the Yang 1.1 interim (created 9/19/14) works. It is unclear if it will work – that’s under discussion. There is no reason to stop the I2RS DM/IM models required by I2RS charter work while we find out if option 4 works. And out of curiosity, if we are now considering option 4 why don’t you want more input and collaboration that provides insight from people who looked at the OSPF for the I2RS use that option 4 suggests? We have complete IM and DM (yang compiled) for the configuration we thought was necessary for I2RS if the agent talked directly to the routing process (the assumption of all I2RS with unique data store). Please review the OSPF and ISIS drafts with respect to option 4. Thanks, Acee Sue PS – the ISIS Draft is not listed as approved or listed on the ISIS mail list as approved. It has not been updated since 6/27/14. If you believe it should be listed that way, you might want to talk to the ISIS co-chairs. From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 5:06 PM To: Susan Hares; 'Jeffrey Haas' Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports? Sue: Did you look at the archives for the OSPF and ISIS WGs? Both drafts were presented at IETF 90 in Toronto. We intend to cross review the OSPF YANG model in both the netmod and OSPF WGs. The ISIS YANG Model is already being accepted as an ISIS WG document. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-isis-0.pdf http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ospf-8.pdf Acee From: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Saturday, September 27, 2014 at 4:32 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports? Acee: Was this work announced on any list at IETF for general contribution? I don’t see an announcement on the ospf list or the ISIS list? Perhaps you could point me to the list where this was announced? Sue From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:58 PM To: Susan Hares; 'Jeffrey Haas' Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports? From: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, September 26, 2014 at 11:36 PM To: Jeff Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports? Jeff: Please add to the agenda the following drafts: I2RS yang Data and Information models for ISIS, OSPF, Basic Network Policy (BNP), PBR and BGP. PBR and BGP will be uploaded next week after some internal review. HI Sue, We are currently have drafts for the OSPF and ISIS YANG models and have multi-vendor design teams contributing to them. This works is being done in the OSPF and ISIS WG groups. You are welcome to review it but please don’t create confusion with alternate drafts. Thanks, Acee The PBR model is the information model that is a collaboration between the PBR (draft-kini-i2rs-pbr-info-model-00) and the (draft-hares-i2rs-policy-info-model). We hoped to have the agreement on the text early next week (just 1 technical discussion). The author team has had meetings in August and September. Please add the use case to the agenda. One question – should I be submitting these I2RS configuration IM/DM as netmod models? If so, I will do this as well. Sue -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dean Bogdanovic Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:44 PM To: Jeffrey Haas Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports? Jeff, To kickstart the discussions looking at what is needed in NETMOD and NETCONF for I2RS datastore for I2RS (use cases for ephemeral data store) working on ACL YANG model - with ACL model available and draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-15 being fixed, PBR info model (draft-kini-i2rs-pbr-info-model-00) can be extended into data model. I'll try to submit the draft by the deadline (it is dependent on new draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg, probably draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-16, being published) Dean On Sep 25, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Your chairs have been a bit over-busy recently with travel to unicast > people doing various bits of chartered work. This means we've been > behind on some of our goals in terms of getting regular design > sessions running. I know that at least a couple calls have happened > that I've missed that Sue Hares has done, so some progress is being made. > > We've requested a 1 hour time slot for IETF 91 in Honolulu to give us > a chance to talk. This is a call for agenda slots. > > This is also a call for status reports. > > We've had some productive discussion about requests to netmod/netconf, > albeit ones that haven't converged yet. > > What have you been up to? > > -- Jeff & Ed > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
