From: i2rs <[email protected]> on behalf of Qin Wu <[email protected]> Sent: 10 September 2020 15:02
Hi, Magnus and Rob: Thanks to Sue for helping reaching IEEE community, we have received IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-15 <tp> Well yes, but as the chain of e-mails makes clear this is informal feedback from an individual in IEEE 802.1 YANGsters group and not a formal liaison response (which I expect is fine). My sense is that the IEEE has a somewhat different view of Bridge ID and VLAN ID to that which I held beforehand from IETF I-D and will look at other uses of VLAN ID, in particular, in a different light as a result. Perhaps it is time I re-read 802.1Q! Tom Petch https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/NtnhmhouhLbSv6nU2xX_wFw0to8/ and address them in v-17 and v-18 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/NzDVHfaWhSgt167AXf-ay_pqRH8/ The latest update is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology/ Let us know if you can clear the DISCUSS now, thanks. -Qin (on behalf of authors) -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2020年7月10日 1:25 收件人: [email protected]; [email protected] 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 主题: RE: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14: (with DISCUSS) Hi, Sue, I raised a discuss on this just to ensure that IESG would discuss the issue today. I raised it based on the Glenn Parsons request on the IEEE-IETF mailing list and that there where apparently some confusion. So I don't really know which failures did occur in this case. I think it would be good to analyze it. I would suspect a combination of issues. Likely including that turn over among AD makes people loose history and process. >From my personal perspective, I as AD would appreciate a WG chairs that reach out to the AD when they thing there might be need for coordination with external bodies. I understand that for this document they might not be as clear. Cheers Magnus Westerlund > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hares <[email protected]> > Sent: den 9 juli 2020 16:28 > To: Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]>; 'The IESG' > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network- > topology-14: (with DISCUSS) > > Magnus: > > Thank you for raising this process discuss. > > The authors and I strong desire the I2RS model to be a NM management > model that imports the appropriate things from IEEE. > > I have two points you should add to your process discuss: > > 1) Where did the coordination instructions change for the WG chair? > > In the midst of the discussion within the IESG would you please consider how > to provide better instructions for the lowly chair and authors on this > topic. In > the past, the IESG sent information to IEEE-IETF. (I was scribe during > the > first meeting of the IETF-IESG over the TRILL issue). I was the TRILL > chair for > the last years of the TRILL WGs life. I have participated in the IEEE > 802.1 and > IETF during the TRILL issue when we were trying to resolve a common > management for TRILL between IEEE and IETF. During that time, it was > important that a few focused voices discussed issues regarding TRILL. It > would help me to understand when this transitioned to chairs being able to > send requests to the IEEE-IETF coordination list. > > We also asked for numerous reviews by Yang Doctors who were > knowledgeable regarding IETF. I delayed publication request several times > until it appeared all issues were resolved. This "sudden" surprise is > indeed > amazing since the L2 is 5 years old. It is older than the 8021Qcp-2018 > official > models. > > > 2) Why are I2RS topology models are not seen as Network Management by > the IEEE. > > These are virtual topology models used by open source platforms for > management. (E.g. Open Daylight). > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:44 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network- > topology-14: (with DISCUSS) > > Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14: Discuss > > 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.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is a process discuss. > > There apparently have been a failure to coordinate this with IEEE per > discussion on the IETF-IEEE mailing list. > > Glenn Parsons requested that this was deferred to give IEEE time to review > it > at their plenary next week. I think this time should be given before > approving > this document. > > > > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
