SUPA Minutes by Will(Shucheng) LIU and Nevil Brownlee ================================================== Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions WG (supa) Agenda for IETF 95, Buenos Aires (95-minutes-00) Friday, 8 April 2016, 1220-1320, Atlantico C ================================================== Chairs: Nevil Brownlee Daniel King About 30 people present, plus 5 others on Meetecho and 7 on jabber. AGENDA: 1. Note Well, Agenda review, Scribes = 2 min Chairs: Main focus is to get our deliverables going. No changes to the proposed agenda. 2. Update from last meeting / WG Status (Nevil) = 3 min - Call for adoption issued for Policy Model - We need to decide on other drafts to adopt Nevil gave a brief update from the last WG meeting. 3. Current charter work items a) Generic Policy Information Model = 10 min draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model-05 Presenter: John Strassner [JS] JS: Motivation for building an information model is twofold 1) policy spans many different actors (end-users, business people, application developers, admins, ...) 2) policies cover multiple technologies and abstractions Hence, we need a consistent form and structure to enable different actors to communicate with each other and work together. Reminded that the WG chairs issued a call for adoption. Benoit: speak as a contributor: after checking the mailing list, about the poll for adoption. Two questions: is it gppd work to have IM? shall we publish this? The answers are, the charter said we might work on IM and derive DM with IM. Then nwe'll see in the end whether we should publish it. JS: aggree, good advice. Dan King: Who has read this draft? About 10 hands. Dan King: Who think it would be a good start for a model, if we decide to adopt? - aroud 20 hands. >>> Chairs will ask again (on list) for adoption as WG item. b) YANG Data Model Draft(s) = 10 min draft-halpern-supa-generic-policy-data-model-00 Presenter: Joel [JH] JH: Is the working group willing to adopt this draft? Anh Le (Netcracker): Does this model nested policy (if then else if, etc)? JH: The representation of property of policy is captured by IM. There are clauses,e.g., in ECA there are E/ C/ A clauses, each is a class. Bert: have not seen the call for adoption on mailing list. Will want to review the draft. Nevil: how many looked at the draft? - around 15 hands. Andy Bieman: is this to be the solution for users of SUPA? JH: Yes, this is the generic policy YANG DM, and hence, a part of the SUPA solution. Nevil: are people ok with calling for adoption? - around 10 hands Bert: need more time to read it. >>> Chairs will ask (on list) for adoption as WG item. c) Applicability of SUPA = 10 min draft-vadrevu-supa-applicability-06 Presenter: Ying Chen [YC] YC: Would like to see this I-D adopted by the WG. Will: It has several use cases, may need a priority of them YC: We have the actual use case that will be used in our network, wewill focus on that. Diego Lopez: We have three model drafts, how should we merge and use them? We need a single document describing the supa model. Dan King: Combine the use cases, merging of the architecture doc. Show how the architecture. How many people have read this document? - around 15 hands Nevil: There is a lot of work in here, but it's unclear how all of that work meets the deliverables. Would like to see it more concise and focused, it needs further discussion on the list. When it becomes better define chairs will call for adoption as a WG item. d) SUPA Framework & Architecture = 10 min Presenter: Bert [BW] BW: Proposes a path forward. Previous efforts were listed, asked a set of questions that have been raised. proposed the formation of a design team. Andy Bierman: too complex, I like a solution in the scope, would like to know who are implementing this and who will use it. Nevil: We already have a design team - the group of authors that have authored this draft (or all of us in SUPA?). I'd like to keep the wg focussed on its charter deliverables. Bert: Need an architecture, to clearly explain the particular components to use. JS: Charter didn't contain architecture, otherwise we need to recharter. The IETF works bottom up, but architectures are done top-down. Bert: Framework should be used. Andy: Have a framework with no use cases, no need for a framework. Benoit: The charter says ... [reading the charter] JS: There are examples in the IM, there will be examples added to the DM, applicability already has 5 use cases. Nevil: discuss on list. Joel: There are I-Ds out there, what is wrong with them? Why can't we discuss these drafts and fix them, instead of starting from scratch? Bert: I propose to have a design team to evaluate the exisitng ones. Georgios: Ask the authors of framework, whether they like to join the design team. Should discuss whether to work on exsitng or write new ones. Nevil: Chair position: all should comment on the existing draft candidates on the mailing list, discuss what part(s) should be improved - "send text for improvements to the list! We're running out of time, we have a another presentation from Jun Bi. 4. Discussion: which drafts to adopt as WG items? = 5 min Chairs will ask on list for adoption of IM and DM drafts (marked >>> above) 5. Any Other Business = Remaining min a) Problem Statement for Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions (SUPA) draft-bi-supa-problem-statement-00 Presenter: Jun BI [JB] JB: This draft has existed for a while; the current version reflects the changes that have been made to the supa value-proposition draft. Nevil: how many read it? - around 10 hands We want to see the discussion on this go on, in particular we need more discussion on the IM and DM. More progress on DM would be very welcome. - - - - -