Subject: Re: [Supa] Notes from second half of meeting/First half - 062215

From: "Narasimha Rao Vadrevu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:43:49 -0700

----------

1.       Note Well, logistics, agenda bashing (chairs, 0 min)

Sue: asks question John an Andy about routing in the latest. She only sees
the 4 use cases max put up. johh, are they Network wide routing is used

John: On the Routing side i thought we had already closed but I am a little
bit confused

Sue : I am confused i though it was network wide policy. But max says not
about routing but porting

john: max gave a sequel example 

Sue: Mine is a much higher level i am not clear what the routing in that
was.  

John: That could be done by a declarative policy and ECA policy and that's a
good example

Sue: But the routing also has an ECA level, are they 2 different levels

Johh: I cant get into Max head. When routing policy is mentioned there could
be more than one policy

Sue: Routing policy that is inherent in the data center or  Harward campus
or Harward exchange point. That is not on  a device but end to end

Andy: I am still confused on SUPA doing 2 different things: Draft Simplified
use of policy abstraction and johns draft of abstractions and mapping any
policy to any 

configurations

does SUPA 2 of them or one of them

John: Mapping draft was an early attempt and hardwired YANG mapping for a
given topology

Andy: IETF pages takes to 2 drafts and doesn't take an where to BGP use
case?

John: That's the reason we need SUE to write an use case

Andy: Can work on  a programmable logic than script. Will work on a solution
that would be automation tools. I think John, Juergen and I are in
agreement

Sue: Andy are we interested in use case example for BGP?

Andy: I think it would be good to make sure the policy work for real world
problems

Dan: We have information model and abstract may be. We try an use and try to
explain how it applies to BGP or ACL

Sue: That would be my point to. Network wide not independent, exchange point
BGP. An application use case of SUPA.

BGP has a use case where in exchange point they provide policies. This could
be a good use case which can do inter domain policy and I can than take
John's policy and 

fit SUPA description

Benoit: if you try to focus on BOF now, I believe we have enough use cases.
At the last BOF we discussed 7 use cases.  SUPA is about Generic policy

The deliverables are 2 YANG models that could be reused. policies that can
work any network any topology.

what SUE describes is am Applicability statement. we should not put the
carriage before the horses. we try to get people agree on generic policy
more than use cases.

Thanks,

Narasimha

rom: Supa [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 8:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Supa] Notes from second half of meeting

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.