notes-ietf-95-netmod

http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-95-netmod?useMonospaceFont=true

                                        NETMOD Agenda For IETF 95

                                        Monday, April 4th, 2016
                                        15:50-17:20 Monday Afternoon session II
                                        17:40-19:40 Monday Afternoon session III
                                        Room: Atlantico C



<ACTION> Update presentation links in Agenda (@Chairs)
<Resolution> Updated links in Etherpad and Agenda

0   Title:        Agenda & Intro
    Draft:        n/a
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-0.pptx
    Presenter:        Chairs
    Notes:

Lou Berger: New IPR rules. Chairs will request IPR disclosures from authors/contributors at various steps.
<Kent Watsen reviewed WG status>

1   Title:        YANG Summary
    Draft:        n/a
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-1.pdf
    Presenter:        Benoit Claise
    Notes:

Mehmet Ersue: Do we have crieria defined with which we can analyze which models are relevant for standardization?
Benoit Claise: Two answer.

1. L3VPN service model (L3SM) will help determine with server YANG models are required
2. The other WG will have to decide for themselves

Eliot Lear: Should we hold progress to wait for OpState and Mount compatibility?
Benoit Claise: They need focus and need to be resolved.

Dean Bogdanovic: Merge pyang 1.1 into main branch. Have an option to complile with 1.0 or 1.1.
Ladislav Lahotka: That's what's being worked on.
Charles (Last Name?): Is it possible to tie pyang to ID-to-nits or to xml2rfc?

2   Title:        Opstate & schema mount update
    Draft:        n/a
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-2.pptx
    Presenter:        Chairs
    Notes:

Kent Watsen: Open items with requirements doc: Data node locality, simulatenous access to intended and applied config, telemetry data.
John Messenger(Correct last name?): Crystalizing requirement document helps focus the work, but maybe not everyone will agree with it.
Lou Berger: Requirements are good/right, but they are not the full set that will be captured in the full solution. We'll know what's really right when we implement it. At this time, we believe requirements document is good enough to proceed with the solution.

3   Title:        Schema Mount
    Draft:        structual-mount/ysdl
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-3.pdf
    Presenter:        Ladislav Lhotka / Martin Bjorklund
    Notes:

Chris Hopps: What is the difference between schema and a model?
Ladislav Lhotka: Good question, but I'm not going to answer that now. (?)

Jason Sterne: In the logical device, if we want to put interfaces and ACLs to mount point, can't we add references from ACL to interface?
Ladislav Lhotka: The sub-schema would contain both, interfaces and ACLs. So you will be able to refer between the interface and ACL. Can't refer from logical device to parent device.
Eric Voit: There is also alias-mount. Will be discussed later, but is not covered by schema mount.
Andy Bierman: Concern that schema-mount throwing away YANG statements will result in invalid models
Ladislav Lhotka: Within a logical mount point, one can refer to other leafs, but not leafs in another root/mount point.
Andy: I am fine with that restriction.
Benoit Claise: Is it possible that we'd have a deviation in a model and another one in the mount?
Ladislav Lhotka: ???
Dean Bogdanovic: Support schema node identifier option instead of mount-point extension to yang.
Lou Berger: Different use cases (??) where mount-point fits better.

Andy Bierman: Anydata tells clients that there may be nodes
Ladislav Lhotka: We need to discuss this more.

4   Title:        Needing an extensible Mount syntax across Schema, Alias, & Peers
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-mount
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voit-netmod-peer-mount-requirements
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-4.pptx
    Presenter:        Eric Voit
    Notes:

Dean Bogdanovic: Terminology is a bit different from Lada's presentation
Eric Voit: Shouldn't be any difference.
Ladislav Lhotka: Don't think there's any difference.
Dean Bogdanovic: Okay.

Chris Hopps: Are the alias and peer mount client driven (does the client control them)?
Eric Voit: peer mount is not signaled today. Defined in the mount point. Mount server is the source of the info that is mounted from the client.

Kent Watsen: with regards to defining an extensible syntax, this needs to be discussed on the list.
Lou Berger: Is the peer/alias mount requested by the server or the client?
Eric Voit: he element doing the requesting of mounted data is the client. This is where the mountpoint exists. The server doesn't have to know that the data is being represented as Mounted.

5   Title:        Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-5.pdf
    Presenter:        Andy Bierman
    Notes:

Issue: "the anyxml statement MUST NOT be used to represent a conceptual subtree of YANG data nodes
Martin Bjorklund: "Must not use anyxml" is okay in 6087-bis. These recommnedations are more strict than the language allows.
Lou Berger: personal preference to not having options, thus MUST NOT is prefered
Issue closed => leave the text unchanged

John (Last Name?):???
Andy Bierman: not in the draft yet

Andy Bierman: Should --ietf pyang option be used on examples? Maybe/maybe-not. If not, then use <EXAMPLE BEGINS> ... <EXAMPLE ENDS> tags
Benoit Claise: Should the <EXAMPLE BEGINS> tag be suggested to other SDOs?
Mahesh Jethanandani: Other SDOs submit yang models as separate files so this issue doesn't always apply to them.
Kent Watsen: things "example" refers to XML instance documents, maybe a better word can be found

Andy Bierman: Requesting recommendations for other conventions that should be in this draft.

Acee Lindem: is this going to be in this document or another
Andy Bierman + chairs: this one
Mahesh Jethanandani: I prefer in a BCP

Rajiv (Last Name?): Recommend a proper structure for a yang model (graphical representation + guideline). Also, recommend what is contained in the operational-state.

    1720:         Beverage and Snack Break

6   Title:        QoS YANG Model
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asechou-netmod-qos-yang
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-12.pdf
    Presenter:        Mahesh Jethanandani
    Notes:

Kent Watsen: Does this document replace the 03 diffserv document?
Mahesh Jethanandani: Yes.
Lou Berger: Why was the model renamed?
Mahesh Jethanandani: Original model excluded anything L2 related. Idea is that this model should be extensible to other layers/features.
Dean Bogdanovic: Common abstraction of QoS is difficult because of different implementations from vendors. Need more active participation from other vendors.

Benoit Claise: SUPA has YANG model for policy and does such abstraction well.
Mahesh Jethanandani: Havne't reviewed it. Will do.
Dean Bogdanovic: There's no way to extend what SUPA is doing for policy for the QoS model.

??? from Ericcson (?): There's a QoS model in rtgwg.

7   Title:        SYSLOG YANG Model
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-6.pptx
    Presenter:        Clyde Wildes
    Notes:

Kent Watsen: Is there a desire to extend this to support TLS?
Clyde Wildes: Current draft supports this. Data elements to support key exchange not added.
Lou Berger: What's left for this draft?
Clyde Wildes: Benoit asked to make change to examples (?).
Lou Berger: Is the document ready after these changes?
Clyde Wildes: Yes.

8   Title:        YANG Model Classification
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-7.pdf
    Presenter:        Dean Bogdanovic
    Notes:

Jason Sterne: Why do we use extension vs augmentation in "vendor specific extension"
Dean Bogdanovic: May have multiple identities that not all vendors support.
Kent Watsen: how much left until ready to Last Call
Dean Bogdanovic: it's ready now, assuming the WG is okay with the changes made to this version of the draft

Lou Berger: what about going deeper and add more catagories (e.g. OAM)?
Dean Bogdanovic: customers have said that it's too complicated
Lou Berger: but the OpenConfig folks had a more detailed model

9   Title:        ACL YANG Model
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-8.pdf
    Presenter:        Dean Bogdanovic
    Notes:

Jason Sterne: Feels that interfaces shouldn't be part of base model, doesn't think there is broad support

Elliot Lear: there many be a need for other motdels to define separate ACLs for input and output interfaces

Chairs: call for if interface should be in base:

6 prefer NOT having it in the doc at all
5 prefer having it in, but as a feature
2 prefer having it in the doc as required

10 Title:        Routing Cfg YANG Model
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-9.ppt
    Presenter:        Acee Lindem
    Notes:

<no questions>

11 Title:        Network Device YANG Organizational Model
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-10.pptx
    Presenter:        Acee Lindem
    Notes:

Dean Bogdanovic: Why are we putting the ietf keychain in top-level instead of system managemnet?
Acee Lindem: Would ACL go there too?
Dean Bogdanovic: It's HW specific.
Acee Lindem: Devices put keychains at the top of the tree so that they can be used across.

Sue Hares: Put ACLs and filters at the same level.
Dean Bogdanovic: do you think they (keychain and ACLs) should be at the same level

Benoit Claise: how does it makes sense for the routing design team to define a model that impacts models outside of the routing area?
Dean Bogdanovic: Splitting it up into different WGs would be complex and cause the models to get watered down
Lou Berger: this draft is informational, should have no impact.

Lou Berger: do we want a structure or not?

Chris Hopps: Benoit, would it be ok if we just talked to other groups and kept the document progressing in routing area/wg?
Lou Berger: when we lost /device, we decided to make the draft Informational

Jeff Tantsura: would like to see it be stronger than Informational
Jeff Haas ???:

Jason Sterne: RFC LNE and NI ... rest can be informational

Chris Hopps: some think there should be no structure
Andy Bierman: don't go with absolute paths
Chris Hopps: One good thing with a common structure is that it allows coding using wildcards and known paths, this can be useful for a few purposes including handling models that may not have existed when the client code was written.

Lou Berger: call for support (strong guideline vs Informational)

Strong Guideline: 8
Informational: 6
Go away: 6
Don't care: 1

12 Title:        Subscribing to YANG datastore push updates
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-11.ppt
    Presenter:        Eric Voit
    Notes:

Chairs: The details of this draft belong in NetConf. Discussion belongs there.

13 Title:        YANG Data Model for Configuration Scheduling
    Draft:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-netmod-yang-schedule
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-13.pptx
    Presenter:        Xufeng Liu
    Notes:

Jason Sterne: have you considered any alternate (point-cut like) approach of having a list that can point to subtrees where scheduling is desired?

Kent Watsen: Why do we want to standardize a grouping?
Lou Berger: It didn't seem to belong to teas wg. Scheduling was beyond the scope of the te topology wg document.
Jeff Haas: I2RS had discussion on calendar objects as part of ephemeral state. This is a nice mechanism since the info is not ephemeral.
Andy Bierman: All sibling nodes and sub-trees are activated/deactivated based on schedule? How does this work with validation?
Xufeng Liu: The schema tree won't change. This is applicable to object.
Jeff Haas: This does not affect the config.

14 Title:        BBF YANG Models
    Draft:        n/a
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-14.pdf
    Presenter:        William Lupton
    Notes:

Benoit Claise: something about the guidelines draft?
Balaz (Last Name?): can you put your mouldes on IETF github?
Chairs: please discuss on list

15 Title:        Manufacturer Usage Descriptions
    Draft:        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-00
    Draft:        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-ietf-netmod-acl-dnsname-00
    Slides:        http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-netmod-15.pptx
    Presenter:        Eliot Lear
    Notes:

Adjourn 19:40