Subject: [i2rs] IETF 89 agenda published

From: Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:41:29 -0800

Hey all;

The I2RS agenda has been posted.

Presenters;  If you've requested / received a slot, please take a look to
confirm your information.  We'll need your slides by Monday 3/2.

cheers,

   -ed

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:20:17 +0000

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.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Crabbe" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 5:41 AM
Subject: [i2rs] IETF 89 agenda published

> confirm your information.  We'll need your slides by Monday 3/2.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:32:04 -0500

Tom,

> 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 (not currenty speaking as a chair, just someone who's done some
amount of project management)

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:17:55 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Haas" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Edward Crabbe" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:32 PM
> 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

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:13:21 -0500

> I find the use case documents a very mixed bag.
[...]
> the WG needs a view on which of the many use case I-Ds is relevant to

I agree.  I suspect one of the likely bits of post meeting work we'll have
in front of us is coming to closure as to which use cases we'll adopt.  This
will have impact on the architecture documents, the info model documents,
etc.

> modelling work of e.g. netmod or, delving into the past, SMI.

A general unfortunate truth within the IETF is that until we have something
that we can put on the wire, many parties will not be interested in helping
with the work.  Getting to that point means that we must have our
architecture together, the use cases and info models cleear *enough*.
Development (the running code after the rough consensus) is what tends to
drive out the bugs and bad assumptions we have in our higher level specs.

In any case, I agree with your sentiment: We need to come to some closure on
existing work items in order to help drive the work forward.  (And our AD
would be happy to see the same. :-)

-- Jeff

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:16:56 -0500

Jeff: 

I like, Tom would like to know what the status of the i2rs use-case work?  

The following will be presented at IETF individually:  
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-white-i2rs-use-case/ 

These use cases provide the distributed reaction to network attacks, remote
service routing (hub spoke), within data center routing, and temporary
overlays.  
 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases/

This has been proposed for the BGP handling case to retrieve information on
the errors, topologies and flowspec, BGP Events, and statistics.  I2RS could
also push information to allow the pushing customer cost communities,
flow-spec routes, new filters for legacy routes, optimize exit control (via
existing policy or PBR).  

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.

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-masked]] On Behalf Of t.petch
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:18 AM
To: Jeffrey Haas
Cc: [email-masked]; Edward Crabbe
Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 89 agenda published

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Haas" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Edward Crabbe" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:32 PM
> > discussion of the use-case drafts and serious work on turning them 
> > into
something

Jeff

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

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:41:37 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
To: "'t.petch'" <[email-masked]>; "'Jeffrey Haas'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "'Edward Crabbe'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 4:16 PM

> Jeff:

<snip>

> Steering (draft-chen-i2rs-ts-use-case).  My co-authors and I seek
feedback

Sue

Yes, you have 10 minutes of time allocated two hours into a two and a
half hour session; good luck:-)

Tom Petch
> > As I've been coming up to speed on the documents in the work group
and
> the
> > discussion.  The ones that have received good discussion also tend
to
> have
> > Since I've been digesting the use case documents in bulk, it's
pretty
> clear
> > 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
> > 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
> > Meanwhile, I'm sure the use case authors would appreciate as much
help
> as we
been

---

From: Dean Bogdanovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:09:08 +0000

Susan,

I read the mbb-usecases draft and you are covering the cases well, expect for the scenario of dynamic spectrum access. With this new spectrum allocation mechanism, the bandwidth requirements will be shifting across mobile backhaul and it will provide much more dynamic environment then what MBH are seeing today. There should be a verification mechanism if the allocated spectrum to eNB can be utilized and that eNB links to MBH have the capacity to carry additional traffic.

Dean

On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Susan Hares <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:38:51 -0500

As we all know, the I2RS making list is a great place for having more
substantive discussion.

Alia