Minutes of the OPS Area open meetings in Prague - FINAL VERSION?

Unless I missed some mails during my vacation, I did not record any =
further feedback to this version.=20

Going once ...
Going twice ...
(but not later than this weekend, please)

Dan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------


Meeting 1 - Monday March 19, 2007 15:20 to 17:20=20

1. Meeting Administrivia

2. Introduction of new Area Director - Ron Bonica=20

Dan - thanking David Kessens for his years of service as Area Director

3. Mini-BOF A: - Manageability and Operational Guidelines - David =
Harrington=20

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-1.ppt

Discussions about the structure of the document - should the protocol =
evaluation be part of the document?=20

4. Mini-BOF B: COPS push mode policy configuration - Tom Taylor and Tina =
Tsou =20

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-3.ppt

Sharon Chisholm: why COPS? because COPS is (apparently) going away=20
Unidentified : working at the ITU-T, still some interest=20
Kevin Johnson: in the draft, not quite clear if a new message was used.
Tom: draft proposes a new message but could also use a flag, which is =
the less violent solution. Discussion of the collision of handles
Dbh: there are two questions to answer.
question 1: is COPS going away? Worth it? Little update in the industry. =
Should this be part of the manageability work (his mini-BOF)? Should we =
move COPS to experimental or not recommended? question 2: technical =
decision whether change is the right one?
Scott Bradner: Answer Dave's first question. some enthusiasm for COPS at =
the  beginning, then faded away. Interest in ITU. The ITU-T is using a =
few protocols including DIAMETER and COPS from the IETF that require =
some extensions. If another non-IETF group wants to use COPS, why stand =
in their way?
Dave: "I can agree with that; somebody once said that the IETF doesn't =
produce standards, but technologies; other organizations produce =
standards"
Dan (to Tom): what is your preferred solution?=20
Tom: A standard document with the COPS update . ITU and IETF would =
progress this in parallel (approve in ITU-T as an annex), and then have =
IETF (tweak and) approve it, and then update ITU-T to reference the RFC.
Scott: This parallel approach has been problematic in the past. It =
should either be done in ITU or in IETF, but not both.
Tina: I think this can be done
Dan: another approach is that the ITU-T can publish an Informational =
document. I do not want to take a position at this point. ITU should =
also consider what happens
Dave Partain: I think there will be little energy to do this in the =
IETF, so it should be done in ITU.
Bert: I do not know if COPS-PR is being used or not; I know I do not =
want to spend time working on COPS-PR. Is anybody interested in working =
on it (including review any work done by ITU?)
Tom: Does anybody work for an organization that uses COPS-PR?=20
One person raised their hands (Tina Tsou from Huawei)
Tom: Is there any interest in working on COPS-PR extensions?=20
Dan: these questions should be asked on the OPS lists and ITU lists.
Should it be standards track? - the authors would like it so.=20
Action item - Tom to address the ops-area list with query to determine =
status of implementation and deployment of COPS and COPS-PR and level of =
interest in participating in such a work

5. Mini-BOF C: Best Current Practices in Operations and Management - =
David Harrington =20

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-2.ppt

Proposal to create operation capabilities working group, modeled on the =
experience of opsec WG
Would bring in operators experience
Framework document and operational guidelines as principal output
Is opsec a success story?=20
Straw poll indicates interest - continue discussion after the next item

6. Improved Efficiency of the OPS Area - proposal for the formation of a =
OPS Area WG - ADs=20

David and Dan - create structure for OPS area, similar to the one =
existing in TSV and Routing
Should it be merged with OPS and management capabilities WG as suggested =
by David H.?=20
TSV chair - success in Transport due to multiple small items, no =
dominant item
Straw poll indicates interest - nobody believes it's a bad idea, =
continue discussions in net meeting


7. Open Microphone=20



Meeting 2 - Wednesday March 21, 2007 - 13:00 to 16:10=20

1. Meeting Administrivia ADs (total: 5 min)=20

2. Mini-BOF D: NE/facilities/lines/protocols/services data modeling - =
Michael Alexander=20

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-4.ppt

Scott Bradner - very complex, IETF not good history in this type of =
thing
Pekka - benefit would go to NMS vendors?
response - benefit to equipment vendors to get devices into NMSs
Pekka - simpler version may be helpful, clean terminology would be =
helpful potential but current scope too big, maybe more fit to the IRTF
Margret Wassermann - interesting, but what gets standardized?
response - focus on meta models only
xx - sim  (info model) underway for 4 years - achieved meta view, now =
time to distribute to groups to use
response - this proposal is much simpler than sim

Chair: suggest create list & discuss issues raised in meeting, only one =
opposed

3. MIB-Doctor-sponsored MIB-document-writing template: David Harrington=20

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-8.ppt

No discussions

4. Mini-BOF E: MIB module editing in XML : Emile Stephan =20

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-5.ppt

Sharon - do you actually have tools to translate XML to MIBs?
response - I'm proposing to edit the MIB in XML and use XSL =
transformation.
Sharon - do you do SMI verification?
Emile: Shows that the tool captures mistakes.
Bill Fenner - wrong way to model MIB in XML - better to have element =
that is syntax or XML schema for writing a MIB
response - I'm using XML in a very loose way, but this is better than =
nothing. Please make better proposal.
Juergen - The opening argument in the beginning you wanted to move to =
data model. The main issue is not syntactic problem to get there.
response -  I asked for a BOF in order to discuss and have proposals of =
how to move forward

chair - does not feel that it's a standards problem at this time but =
maybe should be discussed with tools people

5. Mini-BOF F: Japanese Data Model Standards: Tomoyuki Iijima=20

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-6.ppt

- proposed goal for NGO
Sharon - why select VLANs?
response - well used technology in enterprise space
chair - MIB modules are used for VLAN config in enterprises - good to =
see comparison between SNMP & netconf=20

chair - In Chicago we will have one or two BOFs for data modeling. This =
contribution belongs to this space. Encourage to continue the work, =
update the I-D and bring proposals to the NGO work.


6. Mini-BOF G: OWL techniques for MIB to XML documents and schema =
translation - Bob Natale=20

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-7.ppt

Andy Bierman - there are issues beyond mere translations - suggests that =
experts in a protocol would need to be involved in determining if =
conversion can even be done
Scott Bradner - how fill in holes (beyond what MIB covers)
bob - would need to have collaborative process for each MIB
=09
chair - good to invite WS-CIM folk to join discussion
Sharon xx - may be mismatch between MIBs and service-orientated =
interface - also may be too high a data bandwidth generated for SOA/WS  =
management stations
Bob - yes an issue
Sharon - how much interest in WS community
Bob - much need among user & developer communities=20
Dan Romascanu (from floor) - not sure that this fits the base role of =
the IETF - make net work better
Bob - this will help the operators run the network better
Eugene - spent years in WS area - high level seems to be good - but WS =
seems to rely on different fundamental information needs than what is in =
MIBs - also some groups in this area do not like each  other (OAIS & =
DMTF for example).  The other is political. Are the two standard bodies =
can really work together in the long term?
xx - good idea & he is optimistic that this would be useful - but there =
are valid concerns about level of impact on the other communities

chair - open list for discussion, consensus in the room


7. Late Submission - requirements to tunneling protocols OAM - KIKUCHI =
Yutaka=20

Pekka - why is this tunnel specific? Only reordering is
response - Our main objective is to measure tunnel quality.
Chair - Maybe the next version of the draft you may need to better =
clarify what is tunnel quality, to emphasis the difference between =
interface and tunnel interface
Scott Bradner - if you prepend seq # you change packet size you may have =
to fragment
Response - I used GRE sequence number (32 bits). Good, if you prepend =
sequence number you may get into segmentation situation.

chair -We'll continue to discuss this on the list, gauge interest and =
answer the questions. I forwarded this to IPPM and benchmarking WG.

Tries to sense the interest in the room: 4-5 hands. Is this not =
relevant? None


8. Open microphone =20

Margaret: The topics today were interesting. But interesting is not good =
enough. We have really bad history of trying to standardize management =
approaches that were not really needed by service providers. We much =
work only on what users really need.
Dan: We split the OPS session to two days. Today's is more the 'new'
issues. We need more feedback from operators. Work in the past lead to =
NETCONF etc.
Dave K.: We haven't allowed BOFs for the last few IETF being strict to =
ensure that ideas that are not really required will not go forward.
However we felt that we may miss some good ideas from going forward.
Bob: To answer Margaret. I wanted to stress in my presentation that =
there are operators and users that need the data models. What do you =
want that shows this need.
Margaret: I want them to be here and participate. If we don' t have =
multiple sources of input.
David Partain: I'd like to address Margaret point. There has been a lot =
of discussions on data modeling. This is a real problem, since everyone =
wants to use NETCOM but there is not any data models. Our users want =
NETCONF. I think this is fair to characterizing it as real need.
Margeret: Are you the customer of the data model
David: Me and my customer.
Ron B.: Maybe we should go to the operators and ask what are the most =
critical problems and start from that, i.e. solve this first. When he =
was a operator he would not have seen the issue as a lack of a data =
model - rather why does pager go off - should keep doing this kind of =
thing but should try to get closer to user=E2=80=99s actual perceived =
needs
Andy: I don't believe it is possible to have a protocol independent data =
model. We don't have the expertise in web verbs etc. You should do the =
work. I agree with Scott that we don't have a way to fill in the holes.
Dave H: Addressing Margaret point. I'm going to have a workgroup meeting =
to understand their needs. Are there any operators  in the rooms? ~ 5 =
hands. on Monday he proposed an ops nm WG to get operators involved - =
looking for volunteers to help ops area better understand operator =
needs, also - operations & managements guidelines doc - also ooking for =
volunteers for that
Bob: We might have minimum basic requirements for conversion of MIBs. =
But most MIBs should be map-able.
Dave K.: Is the experiment with the mini-BOF useful? Around 30 hands
Who thinks this is not useful? None
Dan: Regarding Dave H suggestion for two working groups, I suggest that =
we unite it into one working group.
Dave H: I think these are two different problems and should be done by =
two different contributor groups. Protocol designers and Operators.
Dan: I agree, but work generates feedback and input generates work. My =
concern that split of resources and that there will not be enough =
interest if we split it to two.
Dave K: From the operator part we don't want to be too lonely=85 The =
important thing is to have a good charter for the working group.
Ron B: New WG chair. Applause to Dave K. I work for Juniper. I was an =
operator in the VBNS network. Looking forward to work with you all.

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area