Subject: [Supa] DRAFT minutes for SUPA WG at IETF 95

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:36:38 +1200

Hi all:

Thanks to Will(Shucheng) LIU for his careful note-taking!

Here is the first draft of the minutes of our WG meeting
at IETF 95 in Buenos Aires.

If you find any errors, or have suggestions for improvements
(i.e. better text ), please send them to me at the address cced
on this email.  I plan to post the final version on the SUPA
Proceedings page on about 26 April.

Cheers, Nevil

SUPA Minutes by Will(Shucheng) LIU and Nevil Brownlee

==================================================
Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions WG (supa)
Agenda for IETF 95, Buenos Aires  (95-minutes-00)
Friday, 8 April 2016, 1220-1320, Atlantico C
==================================================

Chairs:
Nevil Brownlee  <[email-masked]>
Daniel King     <[email-masked]>

About 30 people present, plus 5 others on Meetecho and 7 on jabber.

AGENDA:

1. Note Well, Agenda review, Scribes                        = 2 min

Chairs: Main focus is to get our deliverables going. No changes to
the proposed agenda.

2. Update from last meeting / WG Status (Nevil)             = 3 min
       - Call for adoption issued for Policy Model
       - We need to decide on other drafts to adopt

Nevil gave a brief update from the last WG meeting.
	
3. Current charter work items

    a) Generic Policy Information Model                      = 10 min
       draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model-05
       Presenter: John Strassner [JS]

JS: Motivation for building an information model is twofold
     1) policy spans many different actors (end-users, business people,
        application developers, admins, ...)
     2) policies cover multiple technologies and abstractions
        Hence, we need a consistent form and structure to enable
        different actors to communicate with each other and work
        together.  Reminded that the WG chairs issued a call for
        adoption.

Benoit: speak as a contributor: after checking the mailing list,
     about the poll for adoption. Two questions: is it gppd work
     to have IM?  shall we publish this?  The answers are, the
     charter said we might work on IM and derive DM with IM. Then
     nwe'll see in the end whether we should publish it.

JS: aggree, good advice.
Dan King:  Who has read this draft?  About 10 hands.
Dan King:  Who think it would be a good start for a model, if we
            decide to adopt?  - aroud 20 hands.
     >>> Chairs will ask again (on list) for adoption as WG item.

    b) YANG Data Model Draft(s)                              = 10 min
       draft-halpern-supa-generic-policy-data-model-00
       Presenter: Joel [JH]
	
JH: Is the working group willing to adopt this draft?
Anh Le (Netcracker): Does this model nested policy (if then else if, etc)?
JH: The representation of property of policy is captured by IM. There
     are clauses,e.g., in ECA there are E/ C/ A clauses, each is a class.
Bert: have not seem call for adoption in mailing list. want to review
     the draft. Daniel King     <[email-masked]>

Nevil: how many looked at the draft? - around 15 hands.
Andy Bieman: is this to be the solution for users of SUPA?
JH: Yes, this is the generic policy YANG DM, and hence,
     a part of the SUPA solution.
Nevil: are people ok with calling for adoption? - around 10 hands
Bert: need more time to read it.
     >>> Chairs will ask (on list) for adoption as WG item.

c) Applicability of SUPA                                 = 10 min
       draft-vadrevu-supa-applicability-06
       Presenter: Ying Chen [YC]
	
YC: Would like to see this I-D adopted by the WG.
Will: It has several use cases, may need a priority of them
YC: We have the actual use case that will be used in our network,
     wewill focus on that.
Diego Lopez: We have three model drafts, how should we merge and use them?
     We need a single document describing the supa model.
Dan King: Combine the use cases, merging of the architecture doc.
     Show how the architecture.
     How many people have read this document? - around 15 hands
Nevil: There is a lot of work in here, but it's unclear how all of that
     work meets the deliverables.  Would like to see it more concise and
     focused, it needs further discussion on the list.  When it becomes
     better define chairs will call for adoption as a WG item.	

d) SUPA Framework & Architecture                         = 10 min
       Presenter: Bert [BW]
	
BW: Proposes a path forward. Previous efforts were listed, asked a
     set of questions that have been raised. proposed the formation
     of a design team.
Andy Bierman: too complex, I like a solution in the scope,  would like
     to know who are implementing this and who will use it.

Nevil: We already have a design team - the group of authors that have
     authored this draft (or all of us in SUPA?).
     I'd like to keep the wg focussed on its charter deliverables.
Bert: Need an architecture, to clearly explain the particular
     components to use.
JS: Charter didn't contain architecture,  otherwise we need to recharter.
     The IETF works bottom up, but architectures are done top-down.
Bert: Framework should be used.
Andy: Have a framework with no use cases, no need for a framework.
Benoit: The charter says ... [reading the charter]
JS: There are examples in the IM, there will be examples added to
     the DM, applicability already has 5 use cases.
Nevil: discuss on list.
Joel: There are I-Ds out there, what is wrong with them?  Why can't we
     discuss these drafts and fix them, instead of starting from scratch?
Bert: I propose to have a design team to evaluate the exisitng ones.
Georgios: Ask the authors of framework, whether they like to join
     the design team.  Should discuss whether to work on exsitng or
     write new ones.
Nevil: Chair position: all should comment on the existing draft
     candidates on the mailing list, discuss what part(s) should be
     improved - "send text for improvements to the list!
     We're running out of time, we have a another presentation from Jun Bi.

4. Discussion: which drafts to adopt as WG items?           = 5 min
    Chairs will ask on list for adoption of IM and DM drafts
      (marked >>> above)

5. Any Other Business                                       = Remaining min

    a) Problem Statement for Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions (SUPA)
       draft-bi-supa-problem-statement-00
       Presenter: Jun  BI [JB]
JB: This draft has existed for a while; the current version reflects
     the changes that have been made to the supa value-proposition draft.

Nevil: how many read it? - around 10 hands
     We want to see the discussion on this go on, in particular we need
     more discussion on the IM and DM.  More progress on DM would be
     very welcome.
	
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                          Computer Science Department
  Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand