Subject: [Supa] Notes from second half of meeting

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:36:42 -0400

Notes from Supa MEETNG 6/22/2015 

Q&A - Question 4 Discussion:

Benoit: John added some input on the wiki. 

        There four unclear points.  You will have this question at the BOF. 

                                Please be prepared. 

Dan: A clarification on the way this question is asked. 

     Where does hits 

Benoit: There is no IESG statement. The last charter was more focused on
data models.

        Operators look for yang data models, and informational model 

Dan: Informational models do not have help define bytes on the wire. 

     The cases where informational models are useful: 

                  a) not selected modeling language,

                  b) not sure of the details of the model,

                  c) need a model to discuss this point. 

Andy: I have more of a concern about work item #2. 

      Coming to agreement on a model is more difficult, the  

                  more abstract the model.  If we have a yang model, then

                  we have more models. 

Dan:  Let us ask this question.  Do we think we will do anything other than
yang? 

Benoit: This is a question that needs to be asked? 

Andy:  Everything needs to be created as info-model and then translated to

       data model.  It is difficult to come to consensus on a info model.

                   It is different

Dan: To design in yang model only, then the translation to a different 

     data model is not a concern. 

John: I did not imply we should be working on anything other than yang. 

      The value of an informational model is that it sits above 

                  yang models. The yang models do not re-use common
concepts.

Andy: Yang is not cast in stone.  Yang 1.1 is about to be released.

      SUPA could chang yang over time if it shows that things in the 

                  data model is not working.  I do not think people pick up
the 

                  abstractions as well as yang.  Yang is the balance between

                  the pure abstraction and the realistic.  You might be too
far

                  ahead of the BOF.

Benoit: Policy is all over the place. 

        Pro: It is easier to agree on the information model.

                                     It provides higher level descriptions. 

                                                 It may provide 

John: ONOS/ONF - do not have an information model.

      DMTF -  has an information model. 

                  (I missed 1 or 2 SDOs) 

Dan: Why don't we start a thread on this question on the main list. 

Benoit: The unclear information on Q4 is.              

John: Adrian added the unclears. 

Dan:  Text "framework is generic and extensible.  The charter needs to 

      show 

John: It was the service controller. 

Dan:  It is a controller - can you clarify this one.

John: I am concerned about discussing a controller which is a controller. 

      I should go back to enter the information.

Dan:  Do you want to take the action items to fix this? 

Andy: Isn't this back to policy? 

John:  This goes back to RFC 3798 (?).

Andy: This is requesting you look at my policy datastore and 

      another datastore (target datastore).  This works whether

                   it is implemented on one device or another device.

                   Is this what you have in mind?

John:  It is possible to nit-pick a charter to death. 

       Our initial wording can be improved. 

Andy: Is this running within a router or sitting above routers? 

John: The focus of SUPA is the later.  We are building network-wide policy

      rather than specific policies.  We should change the whole answer.

                  We should check the 

Benoit: SUPA works on the policy to work on outside of the network-elements,

        the network-wide policy.

John: In looking at the response, Adrian is right. 

Benoit: Should I just change this for the group? 

John: That would be fine. 

Benoit: It would be useful to be done soon. I am pushing people to 

        read this information. 

Dan: Can you revise the wiki? 

John: I will just revise this thread to remove all 

      and revise it for the changing the network-elements: 

Benoit: I am deleting the text and putting the new words now. 

Dan: (wordsmithing comment on Q3) My proposal was to move some of 

     the text after the final BOF.  

Tina: Sounds good to me? 

Benoit: It does make sense to me.  SUPA will be a success if 

        SUPA will be defining models based on the generic models

                                from SUPA.

Dan: I will take the token to pen. 

Andy: I have a question about Q3. Are we developing policies that will     

      look like a bad solution if a generic solution. 

Dan: We will be successful if WG will re-use some of the constructs.

     If the work is successful, people will use it. 

     If it is not successful, people will not reuse it. 

Benoit: If it useful, then it will be used. 

Dan: I will clean-up question 3.  We should

     continue the discussion during the week. 

                 Anything else - 2 weeks until the cutoff. 

                 We should review the documents before the submission
cutoff. 

Tina: Will Andy and Narasimha have materials. These should be sent to the
mail list.

---

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:46:32 -0700

Thanks Sue for taking notes, especially when you are also trying to talk. I
find that difficult personally.

Here are a couple of small corrections for the record:

#1

                  (I missed 1 or 2 SDOs)

What I said was that OpenStack, ONOS, and ODL do not have information
models. TMF and ONF do have information models.

(And since you brought it up, the DMTF has a DATA model, not an information
model (and in spite of the CIM acronym), since it is NOT technology-neutral
(it uses weak relationships and keys, which are relational concepts, and
its language is proprietary).

#2

What I said was that I am concerned about discussing a controller at all.
Controller implies SDN controller, and there is no reason for SUPA to be
limited to being applied just to an SDN scenario.

#3

s/3798/3198

regards,

John

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Susan Hares <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dan:  Let us ask this question.  Do we think we will do anything other
> than yang?
>
>
>
>                   data model is not working.  I do not think people pick
> up the
>
>                   the pure abstraction and the realistic.  You might be
> too far
>
>                   ahead of the BOF.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Supa mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
>
>

-- 
regards,
John