Subject: [Supa] Notes from interim meeting 2015-01-26

From: JF Tremblay <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:43:19 -0500

Here are my rough notes from today’s meeting. 

-----------------------
SUPA meeting 2015/01/26
7:30 AM PST
-----------------------

Agenda (posted on supa list on January 23rd)
--------------------------------------------
- Note well
 
- Solicit Scribe, Record Webex
 
- Charter
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/supa/current/msg00328.html
 
 - If there are review comments on any of the following drafts, and we have time, we can discuss below
- Problem Statement
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-karagiannis-supa-problem-statement/
 
- Framework
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-supa-framework/
 
- Topology data model
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-contreras-supa-yang-network-topo/
 
- Topics from participants
 
- Adjourn
-----------

JF Tremblay (JFT) agreed to be scribe. 

Charter: 
Juerguen (JS): 
- Not that much of a "heated" debate this week. 
- John is not on the call, makes it hard to discuss. 

Tina (TT): 
- Talked to authors, there is some overlap according to them. 
- Happy if it can be taken by supa (published in netmod individually for now). 

JS: 
- The policy work is not clear yet. This new draft might be that, the authors need to explain it. 

TT: 
- They wanted to do it in I2RS first, but it isn't chartered for that. 
- John and ? (Rakud?) committed to work on that. Will reply by Wednesday, on a plane now. 
- Do we need a BoF for IETF Dallas?

Dan Romanascu (DR) joined. 

DR
- Is this the first BoF?
- This gives us the time to adjust. Let's hear what people thing. 

TT
- Yes .

DR
- I have seen BoF with much worst documents. 
- May need more work on the framework. 
- Postponing is possible, with a side meeting. Might be challenging for scheduling. 
- By requesting a BoF, we can clarify what needs for work. The IESG can ask us to make more work on some items.

JFT: 
- The charter is better, but not all points are clear. Especially policy work. 

DR:
- We have a list of deliverables, things are getting clearer.  
- Making progress on the draft. 
- It would have the advantage of attracting the attention of other wgs and bring comments. 

TT
- The deadline for requesting is 02-06.
- Didn't get a chance to talk to Benoit yet. John and Tina asked him. 

DR
- Could ask Benoit to come to the meeting next Monday. 
- Could send him an email too, asking for an opinion on the charter. Will invite him to next meeting. 

JS
- I can merge the last comments and see where we are. 

TT 
- If we have no other issues, we can discuss some drafts. 

James Huang (JH):
- Question about the charter: are we going to define an information model?

JFT: 
- Not sure it's required if there's only one data model planned. 

JS: 
- Agreed. It's worth doing the extra work if multiple data models are done.  

Georgios K. (GK): 
- But if we do an information model, wouldn't that be new work?

JS: 
- It wouldn't be completely new.
- Usually they do one because they haven't picked one language yet. 
- Because we're close to the routing yard, chances are good this would be done in YANG, at least as a first priority.  
- John mentioned this because this is a sort of top-down approach that was discussed. 

JH: 
- But this is mentioned in the charter then. 

JS: 
- Right, we shouldn't mention it if we don't want it. 

DR: 
- Right, I agree. 

JS: 
- The sentence is a terminology split. 

TT: 
- Should we just delete the sentence or reword it?

GK: 
- Like JS's proposal. 

JS: 
- I can try to reword and see if it's acceptable for people. 

---
Discussing the PS draft: 
GK: 
- I'd like to discuss the table of content and which problems to include. 
- I have the slides to share. 
- This is version 04. 

JFT
- The use cases would benefit from having subsections. 

JS
- Where do you feel we are regarding completeness of this document?

GK: 
- Describes the three main cases. 
- Need to verify if the use cases are agreed upon by the group. 

JS: 
- Is it worth it spending time on this? 

GK: 
- Just wanted to check if other sections are required in the table of content. 
- Also wanted to discuss if we have the right use cases. 

JFT: 
- Why include architecture work in the ps?

GK: 
- Was asked to include it previously, to provide details. 

DR: 
- Helps understanding the document. Need a reference to the other document. 

TT: 
- Shouldn't be describing the architecture. 

JS: 
- Need to focus on describing the problem. 
- Some elements don't belong in there. 

DR: 
- The IESG tends to push the use of these documents, but not to publish them. 

GK: 
- This is not about publishing these as RFCs. 

Marco Liebsch (ML): 
- Now catching up. About the table of content. 
- Introduction is a bit lenghty. Could have a part describing the problem. 

GK: 
- Could identify these more clearly. 

TT: 
- Marco, would you like to help with the intro?

ML: 
- I'm not yet in the main focus of supa. I don't have cycles now to work on this. 

GK: 
- Need to provide more clear definition of the problem. 

JS: 
- The logical workflow is to identify why the current technology does not fullfil the requirements. 
- Don't do it in the intro. 

GK: 
- Three main use cases discussed in the draft. 
- First is about data centers. For example, bandwidth is different depending of time of day. QoS requirements are not the same either. 
- Another use case is about optimization of traffic paths dynamically and load-balancing. 
- Third use case is using VPNs connection virtual private clouds. 
- Opinions, comments on this?

DR: 
- I like the way the use cases are structured. They make a good case together. 
- Although there may be solutions in other organization. For example MEF. 
- MEF is doing some work in the modeling of provisioning services. 
- We may want to look at what other organizations are doing when looking at models. 
- MEF is talking about adopting YANG. 

GK: 
- Ok, thank you. We can derive analytical conclusions and then derive that there isn't work in the IETF, but other SDOs are working on similarities of these topics. 

DR: 
- Another relevant one to the work here is ETSI (ETSI-NFV?). 
- Maybe some text in the charter saying they will communicate to make sure work isn't duplicated. 

JS: 
- Let's start with communication, cooperation is something else. 

Ended at 8:33. 

------------
JF