Subject: [bess] Fwd: [L3sm] Some background on the L3VPN Service YANG Model work

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 14:53:59 +0100

FYI. Sorry for the potential duplicates.

Regards, Benoit

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[L3sm] Some background on the L3VPN Service YANG Model work
Date: 	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:40:52 +0100
From: 	Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked]

Dear all,

Let me give you some background on this new piece of work: The Layer 
Three Virtual Private Network Service Model (L3SM)

Three months ago, Adrian Farrel and I set up a design team to create a 
L3VPN _service _YANG model.
It needs to be clearly understood that this L3VPN _service _model is not 
an L3VPN configuration model. That is, it does not provide details for 
configuring network elements or protocols. Instead it contains the 
characteristics of the service, as discussed between the operators and 
their customers.  Therefore, that design team was composed of operators 
only.

That design team created a first draft: 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-l3vpn-service-yang/
Now that the draft has been posted, the work and discussion should 
continue in a public forum, i.e. this [email-masked] mailing list.

Next step? we're busy trying to create a new short-lived WG, focusing 
solely on this L3VPN service YANG model.
See the proposal at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-l3sm/
If this WG is created (This proposal is on the IESG telechat this week 
for external review approval), this would be a good test for the IETF 
community: are we ready to standardize a first service YANG model? 
Personally, I believe we are.
IMO, the advantage/driver for this work is explained in the charter 
proposal:

    The deliverable from this working group will provide information to evaluate the
    set of YANG models that have already been developed or are under development,
    and will help identify any missing models or details.  The deliverable can be
    viewed as driving requirements for protocol configuration model so that the
    service parameters can be mapped into inputs used by the protocol models.

Don't hesitate to forward this email.
     List address: [email-masked]
     Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3sm/
     To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm

Regards, Benoit

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:45:00 -0500

Benoit:

Is the L3VPN service model a protocol dependent model (BGP Services) or a
protocol independent modules? 

Sue 

From: BESS [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 8:54 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [bess] Fwd: [L3sm] Some background on the L3VPN Service YANG Model
work

Regards, Benoit

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 

Subject: 

[L3sm] Some background on the L3VPN Service YANG Model work

Date: 

Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:40:52 +0100

From: 

Benoit Claise  <mailto:[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>

To: 

[email-masked]

Dear all,

Let me give you some background on this new piece of work: The Layer Three
Virtual Private Network Service Model (L3SM)

Three months ago, Adrian Farrel and I set up a design team to create a L3VPN
service YANG model.
It needs to be clearly understood that this L3VPN service model is not an
L3VPN configuration model. That is, it does not provide details for
configuring network elements or protocols. Instead it contains the
characteristics of the service, as discussed between the operators and their
customers.  Therefore, that design team was composed of operators only.

That design team created a first draft:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-l3vpn-service-yang/ 
Now that the draft has been posted, the work and discussion should continue
in a public forum, i.e. this [email-masked] mailing list.

Next step? we're busy trying to create a new short-lived WG, focusing solely
on this L3VPN service YANG model.
See the proposal at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-l3sm/
If this WG is created (This proposal is on the IESG telechat this week for
external review approval), this would be a good test for the IETF community:
are we ready to standardize a first service YANG model? Personally, I
believe we are. 
IMO, the advantage/driver for this work is explained in the charter
proposal:

The deliverable from this working group will provide information to evaluate
the
set of YANG models that have already been developed or are under
development,
and will help identify any missing models or details.  The deliverable can
be
viewed as driving requirements for protocol configuration model so that the
service parameters can be mapped into inputs used by the protocol models.

Regards, Benoit