Sue, See inline.
From: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Saturday, September 27, 2014 at 8:21 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 think we are still confused. The different streams (i2RS/config) that may or may not be merged (under debate). Both i2rs/config streams had open calls at IETF 90 for contributions and collaborators based on pre-IETF 90 work. On that portion of topic after this message, let’s declare rat hole. My key question is still unanswered: “Do I understand is that you as co-chair of OSPF are stating you recommend not reading or reviewing the I2RS OSPF drafts I and my-authors created for the I2RS stream and instead you recommend figuring out if your existing configuration drafts fit I2RS?” I appreciate your bluntness so I can figure where to put our next efforts in I2RS. Note the IESG statement on YANG models independent of I2RS: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html We have been working on YANG models for some time in both OSPF and ISIS. The ISIS model is already being adopted and we will request WG OSPF adoption upon the next refresh. I can’t help it if you are not following the WGs for which you are proposing models. For your next efforts, I'd recommend better coordination and awareness of WG activities. Thanks, Acee Thank you, Sue From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 7:37 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: Saturday, September 27, 2014 at 7:22 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: Thank you for the pointer to the message in ISIS. Perhaps since Chris just declared consensus Friday the 9/19/14 that he will get around to posting these drafts. I’m not sure why you are suggesting that these drafts have not been previously posted. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yeung-netmod-ospf/ Acee – my message indicates the isis drafts had not been posted as: draft-isis-yang-isis-cfg, and that draft-yeung-netmod-ospf was not the ospf web page or netmod web page. It is a polite indication between chairs that if this is important .. you might want to catch up with your housekeeping. To be clear, I understand from your work that you are declaring consensus on the yang models for OSPF model based on your knowledge of the private multi-vendor design team. As you noted, both the presentations at IETF 90 called for participation. These design teams are much less private than the OSPF/ISIS IM/DM drafts you submitted yesterday. Acee – this is simply not true. See the above information – it had the same level of call at IETF 90. You are stating at the OSPF chair that those models have the front seat in looking at the I2RS models without reading any of the I2RS IM/DM drafts we have prepared. The work on the OSPF and ISIS YANG models pre-dated the drafts you have submitted yesterday by quite some time so I don’t see we should consider replacing it. Acee – I’m afraid you rare confusing the I2RS work with the configuration work. Only on 9/19/14 at a yang 1.1 interim (no standing with I2RS), was there a suggestion these might work. Please confirm that I understand this message so that I can determine the next steps to take with these drafts. Your next step should be to review the OSPF/ISIS drafts. Thanks,A Acee Sue From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 6:32 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: 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
