1. Introduction
Administrivia and Agenda Bash - Chairs (5 minutes : 5/90)
WG Status - Chairs (5 minutes : 10/90)

chairs: Welcome
Discussion:
Agenda bash - no additional input.

2. Work in Progress (in scope of the charter)
YANG Data Model for L3VPN service delivery - Authors (50 minutes : 60/90)
- draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model (Rob Shakir)
o Status Update
o Discussion of Issues

1. Introduction Administrivia and Agenda Bash - Chairs (5 minutes : 5/90)WG Status - Chairs (5 minutes : 10/90)chairs: Welcome 2. Work in Progress (in scope of the charter)YANG Data Model for L3VPN service delivery - Authors (50 minutes : 60/90)- draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model o Status Update o Discussion of Issues are

Erik Nordmark: If you are thing are considered about operational state? The provisioning and configuration will be associated with this model.
Rob: This goes where the common state or augmenting state.
Adrian: We should go back to the issues and see if anyone in the room wants to claim the issue.
Robin: I want to comment on earlier slide. You do not have OAM.
Rob: The flag is "OAM protocol will be used". The connection needs to identify what is on the other end. The achievable abstraction on the OAMs is currently under debate.
Robin: I think you can provide a user friendly language rather than an OAM. I think it is challenging for users to specify the specifics of the VPN.
Rob: Who is the user? Is it the ordering person? Is it a person who of a 20 person company who specifies the service or the operator of a multi-national company IT person.Set-up for a small company needs rudimentary problems.
Robin: I hope for a device model that can be developed from this model. Do you think that different users make the users can use this model?
Rob: This model is basic. Is service model is just configuration? I struggle to get a model that applies to all service providers. Each service provider will tailor the model for the specific services
Mahesh: We have done in MEF this work. You are talking about service level parameters, leave the rest intelligence in the level below.
Rob : if the customer could specify it, it should be a leaf put there and there it become service parameters.
Maxim Kuys: Is this between administrators? There is no configuration for users?
Rob: Is this a service mode because it because it has service model versus? In my view most operators do not have a technology that sufficiently abstract from the technology. It does not help these operators to have a specific model. The model becomes a fluffy thing.
Michael Scharf: You need to define architecture to describe who talks to whom, and who does what to whom. I think you can try to describe this in the draft.
Mahesh: I agree with the previous speaker. One of the issues we struggled in the MEF. When L3 services there in the model today, are you able to define all the device level configuration in the model we developed today? Is there any recommendation when we develop service model, we need more stuff in the device model also.
Rob: Can we do existing Vpns today? Or do you need extra capability? We did this so we can set-up current networks.
Maxim: My point of view is that this model mixes everything together. Service configuration and data abstraction. The model should involve service from the service point of view. How does this help the users.
Rob: Some customers services have L3VPN
Maxim: It is impossible to do everything in one model. I want to see something that helps create our L3VPNs.
Rob: I do not think there is any specific solution in the model.
Maxim: Each operator has his/her own service provisioning model.
Rob: The aim of this work e going to have a global model. Each service providers went away and create a model. We came up with a single model from these individual pieces of work. We did not know if there was a model that standardizes our services. If 80% of the under mappings are the same, then we save time with this model.
Max: If you just need to set-up a single simple service, it should be easy to set-up the model.
Robert: I think that having a model that is the base, and then the VPN business model.
Rob: I agree. with a based model that can be used by all and augmented to create the specific purpose.
Robin: How do you work on this model? We have many members int the wG and there is a lot of requests. I remember the next slide has the constraints.

Rob : An operator needs to understand these parameters to create a service.
Robin: The service model does not relate to the device.
Rob: It is important to capture the needs the client's needs. Each of the clients faces has different challenges.
[person 3]: Does this type of work apply to Generic Tunnel?
Rob: Not applied. We are discussing the parameters which link to the L3VPN. You fill out the one you need for your network.
Adrian: An Up-level, what part of this model will you create as common parts. Is there anyway we can tick off one of these issues.
Max: One of these focuses should be customer based and some service based.
Adrian: Depends on the customers. Sometimes you just want a general service. Other times you want the colors/shades of service. If you provide only on the basic service.
Rob: We are mapping between customers to the device.

services --> device
special services --> service
user interface --> special services.
We have to have a detailed model to sell to the clients.

Adrian: I'm going to talk about process. We have the following issues

a) issues not in the tracker - which we refine and place in the tracker,
b) Issues that are in the tracker which we need to reach consensus on.

We can have a physical or virtual to resolve these. Who would like to travel to a physical meeting?

[no hands]
If we have a physical meeting, would you attend?

Scott: If you had a forum where we discuss all the models for MEF, BBF, and IETF. Even you are remotely interested in a face-2-face meeting, a ___ meeting alongside.
Adrian: Who would appreciate virtual meeting? [number of hands]
Who would attend? [number of hands]
The chairs are looking for a virtual date in December.
Scott: You may want to have 3 virtual meetings: east coast, west coast, China. Having multiple meetings on day may help.

3. Other Work (out of charter)
a. Liaison from the MEF to L3SM - Mahesh Jethanandani (10 minutes : 70/90)

b. I-Ds not Discussed on the List

o Service Automation Management Architecture - Aijun Wang (10 minutes : 80/90)
    draft-wang-l3sm-service-automation-architecture-01
    Feedback:
        Is this useful work?

[Scharf, Michael]: One aspect that frightens me is that according to slide 4 the Customer Service Orchestrator looks at individual network elements.

[Aijun]: We are translating the service model to a design models.

[Scharf, Michael]: Yes, agreed. But the slide says that this is done by a customer facing component, which seems a bit strange.

[Adrian]: We need to separate talking about network elements and elements. It would be helpful to separate the elements from these models.

[Maxim]: I think this type of work.

[Scott]: I agree wth Adrian's comments. We should find a good home for this work.

[Aijun]: Please let me know if you have more questions.

o YANG Data Model for Value Added Service (VAS) - Rong Gu (10 minutes : 90/90)
draft-gu-l3sm-vas-service-model
[Robin]This model is useful becos datacenter, L3VPN, EVPN, VXLAN.This is a big starting point.

[Maxim]:I also think it is useful, especially from technology independent perspective.

[Adrian]:who think this work is so exciting and want to start to work on it with the authors. who think this work is important and is willing to encourage author to continue working on it and watch it, okay, lovely, we have so many support.

[Adrian]: when I get back from this meeting,you should kick chairs to help introduce you to AD to see where we should put this work.

[Gu Rong]Thanks everyone.Just have a smile.

4. AoB