Subject: [Supa] supa charter revision 2015-01-29

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:27:31 +0100

Hi,

I took an action item to revise the charter text based on input
received on the list and discussions we had on Monday. I have
incorporated all the wording improvements submitted by Bob. To address
James' concerns, I have replaced information model with the phrase
'generic policy model'. Perhaps we can leave it open to the WG whether
an explicit information model is required or whether YANG models are
sufficient. The key, I think, it to define an generic policy
structure.

I have gone through JF Tremblay's comments and I incorporated many of
his suggestions, but sometimes not literally. While working on the
text (and shaking my head about how the parts fit together), I came to
the conclusion that we may be talking about a layered topology model
including available resources, a service model including service
specific parameters and resource requirements, and a set of policy
rules that actually drive the mapping of a service model to the
network topology. I do not know whether this is the view of the people
here on the list - so please speak up if not. But with this view in
mind, it became much easier to edit the charter text (since the policy
part now has a much more clearly defined function).

So, shoot your arrows at the 2015-01-29 edition of the charter text.

/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: JF Tremblay <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:05:48 -0500

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> received on the list and discussions we had on Monday.

Great work! This is a much crisper version. Thanks for doing this. 

A single nit around the beginning (fifth line): s/complimentary/complementary/ 

> . The key, I think, it to define an generic policy
> structure.

Agreed. 

> While working on the
> here on the list - so please speak up if not.

Seems a fair description of the group intent, imho. 

The service modeling part could be defined further maybe. Especially a sentence like "A service is then defined as a graph that uses that topology.” could be improved, but I can live with this sentence as it is now. 

JF

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:17:42 +0100

> A single nit around the beginning (fifth line): s/complimentary/complementary/ 

ack

> The service modeling part could be defined further maybe. Especially a sentence like "A service is then defined as a graph that uses that topology.” could be improved, but I can live with this sent…

Yes, I agree with your comment to eliminate the work 'graph'. I kind
of lost that edit. What about this replacement:

  A service is then defined as a service topology layered above the
  network topology.

/js

---

From: JF Tremblay <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:33:04 -0500

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Good for me. Vague enough for thought-provoking discussions, hopefully. 

/JF