Subject: [i2rs] Action items from IETF-90

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:35:30 -0400

Working Group,

We think we had a useful session!

We wearn't able to walk the hallways between sessions without people
stopping to talk about Yang models for the protocols.   This bodes well for
I2RS and for protocol model development in general since many of those
discussions was on how to do modeling work that served both the protocols
and I2RS.

Jeff also stopped into the netmod working group to give a few minute
discussion on overall requirements for I2RS on netmod/netconf.  The netmod
chairs requested that we put together short drafts documenting the desired
solutions.  Dean Bogdonavic, Kent Watsen and Lada Lhotka have volunteered to
help author the initial set of drafts.  Tom Petch has also produced an
interested draft on the subject and may want to participate [gently poke
:)].

The working group had a number of action items resulting from our session.
Here is the list from the notes:

- Chairs to submit architecture and problem statement for publication.  Jeff
  has one lingering question out to the security draft authors to close prior
  to this.  We expect to be submitting these drafts in the coming two weeks.

- Chairs to request update to our charter in a number of areas, including a
  statement that it's acceptable to work on data models.  (This is a
  process formality.)

- WG to adopt the use-case summary draft to cover in-charter use cases.

Sue Hares will work with the authors of the individual use case drafts to
pull in narrative text for their use case for the summary document and to
review derived requirements.   Additionally, the out-of-charter items will
be removed.

Use case drafts in general will not be progressed to RFC.  Authors of
out-of-charter use case drafts are welcome to keep them active and refine
them until the WG can take on additional use cases to our charter.

If you have an in-charter use case, this means *please talk to Sue* and help
with the text! :-)

- Design teams

It is time for us to start working on documents that include data models.
We'd like to see documents include a problem statement, information model
and data model.  We have a number of documents that have in-charter
informational models and these documents may make sense to start as the
basis for the data model work.  Remember that info models are still required
as a convenience function.

Our suggestion is if you wish to be part of the design team for a given
document, please start by contacting the authors of an existing
informational model document; but also please let the chairs know you're
interested in this work.

In the next couple of weeks, once we have the list of interested parties,
we'll start setting up resources for the groups to iterate: teleconference
numbers, source repository, etc.

For a number of our use cases, there will be overlap with protocol yang
modeling work that is to be done in other working groups and even other
areas.  Part of the design effort will involve coordinating with those
groups.  The exact form of this coordination (shared repo, review process
etc) is under active discussion with both the ADs and chairs of other WGs.

As an aside: part of our learning from the WG sessions was that we need to
find a better way to engage participation during the actual WG meeting for
the representation of models (specifically informational models).  I've
started reaching out to other people working on IMs in other groups since
such issues will be IETF-wide and not unique to I2RS.

-- Jeff & Ed

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:39:03 -0400

I noticed reviewing the problem statement that some of its definitions 
are now incorrect.  Can we remove any definitions that belong in the 
Architecture document?  (Like SFP.)

Yours,
Joel

On 7/31/14, 3:35 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>