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

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 14:52:06 +0100

FYI.

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: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:08:43 +0000

Dear Benoit,

Thank you for forwarding it.

I almost thought this was the first service yang model from supa.

Have you seen
draft-zaalouk-supa-vpn-service-management-model-01<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zaalouk-supa-vpn-service-management-model/>
VPN Service Management YANG Data Model?

and the discussion about draft-zaalouk-supa-vpn-service-management-model-01<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zaalouk-supa-vpn-service-management-model/> and http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-l3vpn-service-yang/
at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/supa/current/msg00559.html
?

Thank you,
Tina

From: Supa [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Supa] Fwd: [L3sm] Some background on the L3VPN Service YANG Model work

FYI.

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]><mailto:[email-masked]>

To:

[email-masked]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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:

    List address: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

Regards, Benoit

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:42:22 -0500

Benoit: 

Do you consider the L3VPN yang service - Protocol independent or protocol
dependent? 

Sue Hares 

From: Supa [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 8:52 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Supa] Fwd: [L3sm] Some background on the L3VPN Service YANG Model
work

FYI.

Regards, Benoit

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

Subject: 

Date: 

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:14:04 +0100

Benoit,

this of course comes along as a BIG surprise for those who have been
working towards service management models in the public.

/js

> _______________________________________________
> L3sm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm
> 

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

-- 
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: "Jun Bi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 00:09:22 +0800

Hi All,

I have a couple of questions or suggestions on SUPA scope.
Is SUPA for policy for Traffic Steering on cross-DDC traffic or we want to
general SUPA policy framework ?

(1)
In the initial stage, shall SUPA only define policy for Traffic Steering on
cross-DDC traffic ?
Thought this is a limited scope, it would be easier to state the problem and
the gap.
It might be considered as the initial goal of SUPA and after we finish the
first phase, we may consider to extend to other scenarios.

(2)
If we want a boarder scope and general scenario, then could SUPA only define
protocol between service managers and controllers, then the service manager
provide programming interfaces to the highest level of users/administrators.
It means that SUPA works at any scenario that *two or more controllers are
involved*, and a higher level server manager is on top of them to centralize
and coordinate policies between different controllers.
In this case, I2RS or other L3VPN service mode are working between
manager/controller and devices, while SUPA won't tough any part of devices. 
Each controller use I2R, etc. to talk with devices, and talk with upper
manager/policy controller by using SUPA. When an user wants read a topology
and set a policy, it use SUPA's Yang model to define. 
The topology required could be virtual topology, then controllers translate
to physical topology and talk to devices by I2RS, etc.

Just my two cents.

Best Regards,
Jun

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 7:14 PM
To: Benoit Claise
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Supa] Fwd: [L3sm] Some background on the L3VPN Service YANG
Model work

Benoit,

this of course comes along as a BIG surprise for those who have been working
towards service management models in the public.

/js

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 02:52:06PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
> 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 
> their customers.  Therefore, that design team was composed of 
> operators only.
> 
> See the proposal at 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-l3sm/
>    viewed as driving requirements for protocol configuration model so that

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:30:17 +0100

There once was a draft charter we agreed on and I think that answered
your question.

/js

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:38:22 +0000

Dear Jun et al,

If you go to
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart

Under
Operations and Management<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart#OperationsandManagement>
SUPA (Approved as BOF for IETF 92)

Click
Draft charter: ​http://cnds.eecs.jacobs-university.de/users/schoenw/supa/<http://cnds.eecs.jacobs-university.de/users/schoenw/supa/>

You could find
http://cnds.eecs.jacobs-university.de/users/schoenw/supa/supa-charter-2015-02-04.txt

Thank you,
Tina

On Mar 7, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

/js

Hi All,

(1)

(2)

Just my two cents.

Best Regards,
Jun

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 7:14 PM
To: Benoit Claise
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Supa] Fwd: [L3sm] Some background on the L3VPN Service YANG
Model work

Benoit,

/js

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]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
To:    [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

Dear all,

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]<mailto:[email-masked]> mailing list.

  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

_______________________________________________
L3sm mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm

_______________________________________________
Supa mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa

_______________________________________________
Supa mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa

_______________________________________________
Supa mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 21:34:52 -0000

Hello,
 
I saw this question first on [email-masked] and answered it there.
 
Adrian
 
From: Susan Hares [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 04 March 2015 14:42
To: 'Benoit Claise'; [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: RE: [Supa] Fwd: [L3sm] Some background on the L3VPN Service YANG Model
work
 
Benoit: 

Sue Hares 

FYI.

Regards, Benoit

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

Subject: 

Date: 

From: 

To: 
[email-masked]

Dear all,

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: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:50:55 +0100

Jürgen,

There is indeed a S in IESG :-)

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:09:26 +0100

S meaning Surprise? ;-)

/js