Subject: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:59:41 -0400

Please review draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02 and comment on whether it
should be adopted by I2RS.  Detailed technical conversation is also most
welcome.

Authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02.
Is so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see
RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

This WG call for adoption will complete on August 12.

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:04:24 -0400

Note that:  draft-keyupdate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-00 has only the basic changes
from IRS to I2RS compared to draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02.   Feel
free to review and comment on draft-keyupdate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-00 instead.

Also - in this case, it is particularly important to have good conversation
and discussion on the draft (unless you believe it is perfect) - to help
guide the co-authors on how to improve the draft.

Regards,
Alia

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Please review draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02 and comment on whether
> it should be adopted by I2RS.  Detailed technical conversation is also most
> welcome.
>
> Authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02.

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:09:05 -0400

I have reviewed the earlier version of this draft and its current form and think its suitable to meet some of the WG's charter items.  I think its in good shape as a starting point for a WG draft. 

	--Tom

> Please review draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02 and comment on whether it should be adopted by I2RS.  Detailed technical conversation is also most welcome.
> 
> Authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02.  Is so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 20:15:48 -0400

> Please review draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02 and comment on
> whether it should be adopted by I2RS.  Detailed technical conversation is
also
> most welcome.

I was under the impression that this was being merged with
draft-white-i2rs-use-case... Did we decide to carry all these use cases
forward separately? Or not to carry draft-white-i2rs-use-case forward?

:-)

Russ

---

From: Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:40:56 -0400

> forward separately? Or not to carry draft-white-i2rs-use-case forward?

WG Chairs - is the intent to only have one BGP use cases draft?

The current keyupdate draft has a large number of use cases and
scenarios, mostly focused on SP network requirements.  Also, I note
that most of it's use cases are centralized deployment and vendor
neutral specification of configuration oriented in nature.  If we are
going to only progress one document to cover BGP use cases, I would
prefer it cover at least some use cases oriented towards manipulation
of routing information to meet service differentiated routing such as
those specified in your draft.

At this time without knowing the authors intent (although one of the
authors is on both documents?) and lack of comment on Joel's similar
feedback earlier to the group, I'm can't support adoption of this
draft if there is only an intent to progress one.  I'd be willing to
support it if the authors are committed to integrating the white draft
use cases (that don't already overlap such as VPN membership) into a
merged document however.

Jon

---

From: Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:11:14 +0200

Jon et al;

IMO we should have a single BGP use cases draft, at least initially.

Obviously draft merger, if required, is up to the respective authors
to negotiate.

cheers,
   -ed

cheers,
  -ed

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:27:47 -0400

>From the comments so far, it is clear that there is work to be done on this
draft before adoption.  I am quite eager to see the set of reasonable
use-cases get discussed and put in.

A single draft of BGP use-cases would be good.  Once one is adopted, the WG
can direct the editors to add cases - if and when there is consensus to do
so.

I don't think that a single draft of all I2RS use-cases is at all
practical.

I would be happy to see more detailed discussion on what does and doesn't
belong in the draft.  My personal (WG-chair hat off) preference would be to
focus on those cases that aren't "just another configuration mechanism" and
that clearly articulate the feedback loop needed of monitored data and
events as well as data to modify/write.

Alia

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:40:16 +0200

On Jul 29, 2013:1:27 PM, at 1:27 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> From the comments so far, it is clear that there is work to be done on this draft before adoption.  I am quite eager to see the set of reasonable use-cases get discussed and put in. 
> 
> A single draft of BGP use-cases would be good.  Once one is adopted, the WG can direct the editors to add cases - if and when there is consensus to do so.
> 
> I don't think that a single draft of all I2RS use-cases is at all practical.  

	I agree. You also need to consider the fact that things will evolve over time, and as a result that could hold up the progress of the early use cases in the IETF process as other use cases are discovered and added.   As you also know, we could gut the entire document and start from scratch just using the draft as a shell that targets that charter item. The point is that the WG has such a charter item, and this document at a minimum, is a good start to satisfy that. As you mention, once its a WG draft, the WG is in control of its content and can alter it as needed.

	--Tom

> I would be happy to see more detailed discussion on what does and doesn't belong in the draft.  My personal (WG-chair hat off) preference would be to focus on those cases that aren't "just another configuration mechanism" and that clearly articulate the feedback loop needed of monitored data and events as well as data to modify/write.
> 
> Alia
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:02:29 -0400

> 	I agree. You also need to consider the fact that things will evolve over time, and as a result that could hold up the progress of the early use cases in the IETF process as other use cases are dis…

Ed/Alia/Tom - thanks for clarifying that we will have potentially
multiple use case drafts but likely only one BGP use case draft in the
WG.  undertsood that the WG can direct the authors to include the
white use cases once WG adopted but I personally would like to know
their receptiveness to the use cases in the white draft, and it
appears others have posed the same question previously.

-Jon

---

From: Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:49:42 -0400

> appears others have posed the same question previously.

Based on my discussion with Keyur in person - I'm satisfied he will
work with the the other authors to integrate WG relevant use cases
from draft-white-i2rs-use-case-00 draft into the document if adopted,
so I now support it's adoption.  Here is my view on the differences
between the drafts:

I'd like to see Sections 3,5,6 from the white draft integrated.
Section 3 overlaps some with content in keyupdate but does not specify
using FlowSpec routes for DDoS diversion; presumably you could divert
traffic directly through i2rs messaging (if such a thing will exist).
Sections 2/7 are basically covered by the keyupdate doc, although
certainly useful text could be merged.  Use case in section 4 is not
on my list, maybe others feel strongly for it. 

Thanks,

-Jon