SUPA Minutes by Will(Shucheng) LIU, with help from Georgios Karagiannis ================================================== Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions WG (supa) Agenda for IETF 96, Berlin (agenda-00) Thursday Afternoon session III (18:30-19:30), Charlottenburg II/III ================================================== Chairs: Nevil Brownlee Daniel King AGENDA: 1. Note Well, Agenda review, Scribes = 2 min 2. Update from last meeting / WG Status (Dan) = 3 min - Adoption of SUPA Information Model and Data Model 3. Current Working Group Documents 3.1 Generic Policy Information Model for Simplified Use of SUPA = 10 min draft-ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model-00 Presenter: John David Dolson: Please provide examples. Without them is difficult to understand the IM. John: Yes, they are under way. 3.2 Generic Policy Data Model for Simplified Use of SUPA = 10 min draft-ietf-supa-generic-policy-data-model-00 Presenter: Joel Benoit Claise: Should all the examples be in IM or DM? Joel: many examples will be in IM and some of them will go into DM (Data Model) as well. Will make sure both IM and DM are explained well. John: We should be able to do software that actually works and we will put it in github and in hackathon to show how to take other IM to generate YANG. Bert Wijnen: If we have the IM and also a DM that will be derived from IM, it is important to know that if I want to code, can I consider that by only reading the DM I should understand what needs to be done and that I should not go to IM. Joel: You can do either one to understand the relationships. Some relationship information is not shown in DM, that is why we use the IM. Dan Romascanu: Certainly you do not need to copy descriptive text from the IM into DM. Joel: How do we get enough descriptive text that useful without coping all the details? We need to find out how much details we should put in the DM (from the IM). Benoit: We have now a working Group draft on DM (data Model) which is shortly updated from previous IETF meeting (IETF95). We had some sort of deadline for two drafts. One is updated just now, so we need to see if we can speed up. Joel: We will not wait for the next meeting to make changes. We will use the mailing list and get the work done a lot faster. 4. Charter Items 4.1 SUPA Policy-based Management Framework = 10 min draft-liu-supa-policy-based-management-framework-01 Presenter: Will (this part was taken by Georgios as Will is presenting) Bert Wijnen: Note that I have withrawn the framework/architecture draft that I presented the previous time. Need to know whether the declarative policy should be considered by SUPA or or should not be considered by SUPA. This is because some of the SUPA WG participants are working on the declarative policy. It will be good to see where these things fit in the framework. Benoit Claise: It depends how much time the WG will spend on the declarative policy. It is important that the imperative (ECA) policy progresses. If the SUPA WG will spend more time for declarative than imperative (ECA) then this will became to be a problem. So the SUPA WG can work on declarative (intent policies) as long as it does not slow down the imperative (ECA) policy work and progress and as long as the SUPA WG does not spend too much time and energy on the declarative (intent based) policy. Boris Khasanov (Huawei): Can you put the wiki on the mailing list. Will: Yes, will do that. Nevil asked initiated several polls to find out whether there is support in the room to start the process of making this draft a WG draft: • Question: how many people read it? (around 10) • Question: How many support the document to become a WG draft? (around 10) • Question: How many reviewers? (10 – 15) • Decision: The chairs will start the process of adopting this draft as a WG draft on the mailing list soon 5. Other Items 5.1 Problem Statement for SUPA = 10 min draft-bi-supa-problem-statement-01 Presenter: Georgios Will: Add gap analysis in a summarized version and update that part. Dan Romascanu: I'm wondering what the purpose of gap analysis at this point of time. Georgios: Agree. Dan King: I've seen a couple of comments on the mailing list that we should have a PS document but it's still unclear to me what is going to be solved by this document because we work towards solution, e.g., IM, DM. There were comments on the charter not being clear enough so this document can explain the SUPA WG, but it can be found in the datatracker anyway. Do we need to work and develop this document to publish? Diego: My comment is to adopt it but let the authors to slow down. Joel: By adopting it, we make sure this content reflects the WG's preferences and understandings. Very useful to make the efforts going forward. We can decide whether we publish it as an RFC later. Dan King: We have limited resources, better fit into milestone. Chongfeng Xie: This document can be the guidance forn how to use SUPA in different kind of scenarios to adopted for our network. Andrew: Better to to work and finalize the applicability. Georgios: We actually have an applicability document but didn't submit in time. Dan King: We'd better merge - rather than have more - documents. Mehmet: The title says PS but what I heard are overview and how to use SUPA, which don't fit into PS. With PS, I'd like to see what the problem is. There seems to be something required beyond PS. Benoit: The last three persons were supporting because they think think there need to be a document explaining how we apply SUPA, my sense is to use the content of applicability document. Dan King: Let's move the discussion to the list. 5.2 I2NSF Client Facing Interface Requirements = 5 min draft-kumar-i2nsf-controller-northbound-framework Presenter: Rakesh Will: As we discussed yesterday, as the author of SUPA framework, I cannot add your user-intent northbound interface as it's not in our scope. Except this, you're welcome to contribute and help to review. Thanks! Dan King: We continue the discussion on the list. - - - - -