LMAP WG Interim Meeting 01/12/2016 (notes by Holger Wiehen and Barbara Stark) Participants: Dan Romascanu Jason Weil Jurgen Schoenwaelder Al Morton Barbara Stark Alissa Cooper Timothy Carey Holger Wiehen Greg Minsky Phil Eardley Agenda: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/01/12/lmap/agenda/agenda-interim-2016-lmap-1 1) Opening ---------- Dan - opening and agenda; 2 note takers are chosen (Barbara and Holger); 2) WG Status ------------ Chairs slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/01/12/lmap/slides/slides-interim-2016-lmap-1-1.pdf Dan - states little progress in active wg items; draft-liu-lmap-rest (alternate protocol proposal) expired without activity on the mailing list (Jurgen confirmed that lack of activity); if authors of the alternate proposal would like to pursue it they may do as comments to the WG I-D. 3) IPPM Metrics Registry ------------------------ Slides from Al: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/01/12/lmap/slides/slides-interim-2016-lmap-1-2.pdf Al - summarizes work on 3 drafts relevant for LMAP (see Al Morton's slides); method used by the IPPM wg is specification by example (draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry) Al - IPv6 is not covered by current proposed metrics; draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep intended to capture IPv6 (RFC 2330 Update); solution is update to IPPM framework and not single drafts; still difficulties to extend IPv4 metrics to IPv6 (might touch registry); Dan - questions the working group status? Al - consensus call is outstanding; good reception; Al - details key points of draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep relevant for LMAP (see Al Morton's slides) 4) LMAP Information Model ------------------------- Slides from Jurgen: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/01/12/lmap/slides/slides-interim-2016-lmap-1-0.pdf Jurgen - presents 4 key issues regarding the relation of the LMAP information model and the IPPM metrics registry (see Jurgen' slides) Tim - questions if the 'schedule' needs a 'stop parameter'; couldn't it be solved by the 'calendar-end' of the 'calendar' object already in the draft; Jurgen - makes a correction to the LMAP 'parameter' object shown in the slides; the 'parameter' is an element of the 'action', not the 'schedule' Tim - questions the diference between 'options' and 'parameters' Jurgen - 'parameter' would be anything specified machine-readable; Tim - why not solve simpler with a YANG identity; Jurgen - YANG eco-sistem leans towards stronger formalization (with a proper YANG data model); Tim - distinguishing between options & parameters will produce duplication in the spec; Dan - states that the suggested formal approach assumes that part of the IPPM-registry will be expressed as YANG models; questions complexity imposed on the IPPM wg; Jurgen - recalls that the IPPM group aims to keep efforts like YANG model to metric authors; Tim - summarizes wg's message to industry: IPPM prefers formal definition of tests (machine readable); but there is a less formal fallback (registry only); Al - assumes that many parameters that could be machine readable will be known in advance as IPPM fixed parameters; those don't need a schema to be read and understood by machines (as the developer codes them). Tim - even fixed parameters need to be defined with rigor (for example dimensions), even being only human readable Barbara - states that there are use cases for machine readable fixed parameters; for example an implementer might control a private registry, and a change in metric's values should be understood and applied programmatically; Al - a change in fixed parameter value in the registry should result in a new metric name, so the MA points to a new metric URL Barbara - states that this would not allow to run one same implementation with different parameters; key is to not equal "fixed parameter" with "hard coded parameter"; Tim and Jurgen retake the discussion on start/stop times for schedules; Tim - states that we have start and stop on event objects; proposed is an additional start and stop on schedule objects; Jurgen - clarifies that those times deal with a different granularity; Tim - adds that regarding the granular control, the start/stop of measurement traffic could be controlled by action parameters; 5) Next Steps -------------- Dan - questions next steps Jurgen - estimates end of January to update the information model; suggests to give people time to think through his information model proposals; feedback required (especially on slide 8); if endorsed would extend his work; Dan - comments that additional examples for the information model would be helpful; Dan - announces plans for IETF 95: 1x 2 hour session; key contributor remote; discuss possible time slot An additional interim meeting before IETF 95 is planned for the week's around 02/15/2015 or 02/22/2105;