Subject: [i2rs] I2RS topology is generic?

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:50:35 -0600

Dear Alia,

I would need your guidance. On my side, I'm trying to help the SUPA 
people with the scope of their work.

During a SUPA call during which Sue explained the I2RS work (thanks 
again Sue), she answered a key question: any topology work should be 
based on the I2RS topology draft (draft-clemm-i2rs-yang-network-topo 
draft). This draft was called the generic topology model draft.

Discussing further with the SUPA BoF chairs, it was observed that the 
I2RS charter doesn't mention it's a generic topology model. So please 
let us know what your intention is. Is this L3 topology a generic one, 
into which all others topology-related work should plug?

The SUPA requirement is a way to express topology at several layers of 
abstraction (granularity).

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:52:14 -0500

Hi Benoit,

Yes, as is clearly articulated in the draft,it is a generic topology into
which all other topology-related work should
plug.

I2RS and Alex are very happy to hear comments and reviews of that draft.

Regards,
Alia

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  Dear Alia,
>
> I would need your guidance. On my side, I'm trying to help the SUPA people
> with the scope of their work.
>
> During a SUPA call during which Sue explained the I2RS work (thanks again
> Sue), she answered a key question: any topology work should be based on the
> I2RS topology draft (draft-clemm-i2rs-yang-network-topo draft). This draft
> was called the generic topology model draft.
>
> Discussing further with the SUPA BoF chairs, it was observed that the I2RS
> charter doesn't mention it's a generic topology model. So please let us
> know what your intention is. Is this L3 topology a generic one, into which
> all others topology-related work should plug?
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:11:49 -0600

Thank you Alia.

Regards, Benoit
> Hi Benoit,
>
> Yes, as is clearly articulated in the draft,it is a generic topology 
> into which all other topology-related work should
> plug.
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Alia,
>
>     I would need your guidance. On my side, I'm trying to help the
>     SUPA people with the scope of their work.
>
>     During a SUPA call during which Sue explained the I2RS work
>     (thanks again Sue), she answered a key question: any topology work
>     should be based on the I2RS topology draft
>     (draft-clemm-i2rs-yang-network-topo draft). This draft was called
>     the generic topology model draft.
>
>     Discussing further with the SUPA BoF chairs, it was observed that
>     the I2RS charter doesn't mention it's a generic topology model. So
>     please let us know what your intention is. Is this L3 topology a
>     generic one, into which all others topology-related work should plug?
>
>     The SUPA requirement is a way to express topology at several
>     layers of abstraction (granularity).
>
>     Regards, Benoit
>
>
>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:22:12 +0100

> I2RS and Alex are very happy to hear comments and reviews of that draft.

Alia,

I like to see this clarified in the charter. The current charter says:

    o The ability to extract information about topology from the
      network.  Injection and creation of topology will not be
      considered as an initial work item.

If the work of I2RS has been expanded to do generic topology work,
then I think it is necessary to document that by updating the WG
charter. Frankly, it seems there is more stuff in the current charter
that does not seem to reflect the WGs and ADs understanding of what
I2RS works on. Anyway, pointing to an individual I-D in order to
define what that scope of the work of I2RS is making it really hard
for others to understand how the IETF works.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:01:35 -0500

Juergen,

When I2RS recharters, I am certain that I'll hear your input.
I am much less interested in rules-mongering and trying to pick
holes (the lack of "generic" before an unqualified topology in the
charter) than I am in gathering people who are doing real work on topology
to get it DONE finally.

Those interested in SUPA were told very clearly before last IETF that
the topology work was already being addressed in I2RS.  You haven't
chosen to participate in progressing the actual work.

As for understanding how the IETF works, all the words in the world
don't help if the recipient isn't willing to listen.

Alia

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:07:13 -0500

Juergen:

As our technical advisor, thank you for providing input on our charter
versus our area of work. 

This individual draft AD has been marked as a candidate for WG Adoption.
The plan for the Topology Design team work has been on the I2RS Wiki for 2
months. We discussed this approach at the December I2RS meeting on
12/16/2014 when we reviewed topologies.  As our Technical advisor, I would
appreciate if you let Jeff and I know earlier if you think we are in
violation of charter with our work.  I could have addressed it with Alia in
early January. 

As always, I am grateful for your wise advice. 

Sue 
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 6:22 PM
To: Alia Atlas
Cc: Benoit Claise; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] I2RS topology is generic?

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 04:52:14PM -0500, Alia Atlas wrote:
> into which all other topology-related work should plug.
> 

Alia,

If the work of I2RS has been expanded to do generic topology work, then I
think it is necessary to document that by updating the WG charter. Frankly,
it seems there is more stuff in the current charter that does not seem to
reflect the WGs and ADs understanding of what I2RS works on. Anyway,
pointing to an individual I-D in order to define what that scope of the work
of I2RS is making it really hard for others to understand how the IETF
works.

/js

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:55:37 +0100

> violation of charter with our work.  I could have addressed it with Alia in

I asked that the charter is updated to reflect what the I2RS is
working on. The word 'violation' is yours.

I have asked several times that the IESG members involved should work
out where generic topology work is done. If the conclusion is I2RS,
fine. All I ask is that this is properly reflected in a charter
update. This is in particular true since topology comes up in various
corners and not everybody may be able to figure out which individual
I-D defines what I2RS is tasked to work on.

Don't get angry at me, I suggest to prepare a charter update instead.

/js

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:11:55 +0100

> chosen to participate in progressing the actual work.

Some people do read charters to determine what WGs are supposed to do.
If charters get out of sync, then this leads to mis-understandings. I
think it is not fair to blame those who read outdated charters.

/js

PS: I actively tried to bring SUPA folks to I2RS interims where
    topology was on the agenda but then the agenda got changed. This
    is fine, the WG chairs can choose to set priorities. But then
    having to read "you haven't chosen to participate in progressing
    the actual work" makes me feel somewhat unhappy given that there
    is a design team and attempts to figure out what is going on in
    the past did not work out.

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 03:23:28 -0500

Juergen:

Thank you for the advice on preparing a charter.  If you have any
suggestions on what should go in the charter, please let me know. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 2:56 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Alia Atlas'; 'Benoit Claise'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] I2RS topology is generic?

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 08:07:13PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> The plan for the Topology Design team work has been on the I2RS Wiki 
> for 2 months. We discussed this approach at the December I2RS meeting 
> on
> 12/16/2014 when we reviewed topologies.  As our Technical advisor, I 
> would appreciate if you let Jeff and I know earlier if you think we 
> are in violation of charter with our work.  I could have addressed it 
> with Alia in early January.
>

I asked that the charter is updated to reflect what the I2RS is working on.
The word 'violation' is yours.

I have asked several times that the IESG members involved should work out
where generic topology work is done. If the conclusion is I2RS, fine. All I
ask is that this is properly reflected in a charter update. This is in
particular true since topology comes up in various corners and not everybody
may be able to figure out which individual I-D defines what I2RS is tasked
to work on.

/js

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:24:12 -0500

Juergen:

I understand your frustration with changing topics in the interims.  

There are two parts to the change of topics in an interim: 
 a) authors deciding they need more time to prepare the documents, and
 b) WG chairs announcing this change with sufficient warning. 

When authors ask to delay to work on their technology, this is reasonable.
On this schedule of bi-weekly interims, it is challenging to make call early
enough to announce the change.   I am beginning to appreciate the IESG's
wisdom of having a 2 week break between last draft submission and the IETF
meeting. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 3:12 AM
To: Alia Atlas
Cc: Benoit Claise; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] I2RS topology is generic?

Some people do read charters to determine what WGs are supposed to do.
If charters get out of sync, then this leads to mis-understandings. I think
it is not fair to blame those who read outdated charters.

/js

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:26:06 -0500

Hi Juergen,

> think it is not fair to blame those who read outdated charters.

The charter says topology.  2 years in, we may want to refine what that
means
in the context of how other models are being done.  For instance, TE
topology
is being done in TEAS.   When I2RS started, the topology in the charter
wasn't
further nuanced. Certainly, the idea of exposing service topologies was
discussed.
I haven't seen progress on those aspects.  There has been work on a generic
topology model.  That it is still an individual draft has more to do with
responsiveness
to input - and has been addressed by the current WG chairs.

/js
>     the past did not work out.

The design team started since November.  The I2RS mailing list is a fine
place for discussing technical ideas and considerations to progress the work
as well as, of course, discussing ones own draft contributions.

Regards,
Alia

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:17:32 +0100

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:26:06AM -0500, Alia Atlas wrote:
> in the context of how other models are being done.

Thanks. I am looking forward to this charter update.

/js