Subject: [i2rs] Follow-up on draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:26:05 -0400

At the meeting yesterday, the chairs called out a few non-chartered 
drafts that had progressed and should have a final decision made as to 
their future.  One was our draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability.

I would like to address the question the chairs raised on the draft and 
ask the WG if this can be adopted.  The question was, should this draft 
be standalone or part of the architecture doc.

This draft originally began as comments to Alia on the arch draft.  Alia 
suggested that a draft outlining what should be logged for purposes of 
traceability should be created independent of the arch.  Since then, the 
arch has had some traceability language added, but the details spelled 
out in draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability take these "breadcrumbs" and 
expand on them specific to what would be required for those needing to 
do diagnostic operations, accounting, and auditing.  On top of that, the 
architecture draft is very well-baked right now, and would benefit from 
going through on its own.

In that case, I feel that this draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability stands 
very much on its own and compliments the arch draft.

Some of the feedback we've had on our latest rev (-02) was regarding the 
YANG model we added.  The comments have been that a YANG model really 
isn't needed here.  In fact, some of the general parts of this might fit 
in the new syslog model work happening in NETMOD.  We would not be 
opposed to taking out this module, and retaining the English text 
explaining the importance of logging in I2RS as well as what should be 
logged.

Therefore, we (the authors) would ask the WG for two things:

1. Closure on the YANG module question.
2. Adoption of draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability as a WG item

Thank you.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:37:33 -0400

I would like to see the draft adopted by the WG, without the YANG model.

Thank you,
Joel

On 7/23/14, 1:26 PM, Joe Clarke wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:47:52 -0400

I would agree with this assessment -- support without the yang model. A more generic multiple model might be nice if we need the illustration... Yang should be in a separate draft.

 :-)

Russ

> On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:37 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:25:12 -0400

Joel:

Are proposing that Informational models are separate documents than data
models? 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:38 PM
To: Joe Clarke; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Follow-up on draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability

Thank you,
Joel

On 7/23/14, 1:26 PM, Joe Clarke wrote:
> I would like to address the question the chairs raised on the draft 
> and ask the WG if this can be adopted.  The question was, should this 
> draft be standalone or part of the architecture doc.
>
> This draft originally began as comments to Alia on the arch draft.  
> Alia suggested that a draft outlining what should be logged for 
> purposes of traceability should be created independent of the arch.  
> Since then, the arch has had some traceability language added, but the 
> details spelled out in draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability take these 
> "breadcrumbs" and expand on them specific to what would be required 
> for those needing to do diagnostic operations, accounting, and 
> auditing.  On top of that, the architecture draft is very well-baked 
> right now, and would benefit from going through on its own.
>
> Some of the feedback we've had on our latest rev (-02) was regarding 
> the YANG model we added.  The comments have been that a YANG model 
> really isn't needed here.  In fact, some of the general parts of this 
> might fit in the new syslog model work happening in NETMOD.  We would 
> not be opposed to taking out this module, and retaining the English 
> text explaining the importance of logging in I2RS as well as what 
> should be logged.
>

---

From: Joel Halpern Direct <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:35:26 -0400

No, I am not proposing that the information model is separate from the 
data model for work that I1RS models.

What I am proposing is that these important system requirements are 
requirements that we need to keep in front of us, but not requirements 
that the I2RS message exchanges need to directly support.  Frankly, I do 
not foresee an I2RS model for this information at all.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:58:21 -0400

Joe:

Is there a use case information we should save in the I2RS use case
document? 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern Direct
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:35 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'Joe Clarke'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Follow-up on draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability

No, I am not proposing that the information model is separate from the data
model for work that I1RS models.

What I am proposing is that these important system requirements are
requirements that we need to keep in front of us, but not requirements that
the I2RS message exchanges need to directly support.  Frankly, I do not
foresee an I2RS model for this information at all.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/24/14, 9:25 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
> Joel:
>
> Are proposing that Informational models are separate documents than 
> data models?
>
> Sue
>
>> drafts that had progressed and should have a final decision made as 
>> to their future.  One was our draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability.
>>
>> Since then, the arch has had some traceability language added, but 
>> the details spelled out in draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability take these

---

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:23:52 -0400

> Is there a use case information we should save in the I2RS use case

We outlined a few in section 4 of the draft.  It's not a use case for 
I2RS per se, but we presented use cases as justification for the 
traceability.  In my neck of the woods, being able to have accurate 
visibility into what the I2RS Agent is doing makes it much easier to 
pinpoint the moment that a change occurred and what that change is so 
that we can replicate operations or rule out known changes when 
troubleshooting.

Joe

---

From: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:25:03 +0100

I support adopting this as a WG draft.

Re the YANG module I'd probably lean towards taking it out.  It reads more like a data model than an information model to me (at least inasmuch as it defines data types etc.)  As long as the draft indicates what should be logged then it'll be straightforward to map that into Syslogs, NETCONF Notifications, or whatever, if you want to send the data over the wire.

Giles

On 23 Jul 2014, at 18:26, Joe Clarke <[email-masked]> wrote:

> At the meeting yesterday, the chairs called out a few non-chartered drafts that had progressed and should have a final decision made as to their future.  One was our draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability.
> 
> I would like to address the question the chairs raised on the draft and ask the WG if this can be adopted.  The question was, should this draft be standalone or part of the architecture doc.
> 
> This draft originally began as comments to Alia on the arch draft.  Alia suggested that a draft outlining what should be logged for purposes of traceability should be created independent of the arch.  Since then, the arch has had some traceability language added, but the details spelled out in draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability take these "breadcrumbs" and expand on them specific to what would be required for those needing to do diagnostic operations, accounting, and auditing.  On top of that, the architecture draft is very well-baked right now, and would benefit from going through on its own.
> 
> In that case, I feel that this draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability stands very much on its own and compliments the arch draft.
> 
> Some of the feedback we've had on our latest rev (-02) was regarding the YANG model we added.  The comments have been that a YANG model really isn't needed here.  In fact, some of the general parts of this might fit in the new syslog model work happening in NETMOD.  We would not be opposed to taking out this module, and retaining the English text explaining the importance of logging in I2RS as well as what should be logged.
>