* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Opsawg Status Pages

Operations and Management Area Working Group (Active WG)
Ops Area: Ignas Bagdonas, Warren Kumari | 2007-Jun-13 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-104 opsawg minutes

Session 2019-03-28 1610-1810: Congress Hall 2 - Audio stream - opsawg chatroom

Minutes

minutes-104-opsawg-03 minutes



          What: Combined OpsAWG / OpsArea
          When: March 28, 2019 16:10 - 18:10        Thursday Afternoon session II
          Where: Congress Hall 2
          
          OpsAWG Section
          --------------
          
          Minutes taker: Joe Clarke with transcription from recording
          Jabber Scribe: Warren Kumari
          
          Administrivia  - scribes, minutes, current draft status, etc.
          
          Tianran / Joe
          10 minutes
          
          Ignas: questioned whether or not rev -13 of the TACACS+ draft is
          forthcoming or if it had
          already been posted
          Joe: rev -13 had already been posted
          
          Network Telemetry Framework
          Haoyu Song
          Draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ntf/
          10 minutes
          
          Joe: Feels this draft needs to get more comments and feedback from other
          SDOs (collaboration) [chair hat]
          
          Joe (as contributor): I would like to see more blending of telemetry to
          help provide more advice on value
          
          Robin (Huawei): Communicating with China Standard Association and JANOG
          and other NOGs to collector more operator feedback; will come back with
          that to opsawg
          
          Joe: Please all review this document as it is a working group document
          
          Secure Device Install
          Warren Kumari
          Draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-opsawg-sdi/
          10 minutes
          
          Few people have read the draft
          
          Tim Carey (Nokia): why does this need standardization
          Warren: it doesn't per se, but I want vendors to do it
          Tim Carey: is this informational
          Warren: yes, this is informational
          Tim Carey: seems reasonable; maybe BCP
          Tim Carey: What hardware have you tested this on?
          Warren: Linux workstation and an OpenWRT router
          
          Bill Fenner: Arista looking at what we can do in this direction; will
          take it back to see if we can do it
          Warren: Woot
          
          Joe: What is your intention with this document?
          Warren: Read it and provide feedback; maybe adopt it if worthwhile
          
          Bill Fenner: What do you think about SSL and authenticating the network
          server?
          Warren: From anywhere you can get the config file, this is fair game
          Warren: But SSL will need a trust anchor
          
          Laurent Ciavaglia: ANIMA has done some analysis, which is why they came
          up with their more complex solution
          Laurent Ciavaglia: Are you not oversimplifying?
          Warren: ANIMA is doing a much larger thing with a new control plane;
          this is simpler as it's focused on a specific use case
          Warren: An attacker could spoof the network server and serve a bad
          config file
          Warren: In my use case, this would be a POP or IX where the bigger worry
          is smart hands stealing my config
          
          Luis Contreras (Telefonica): Test that equipment is stolen and used by
          an unauthorized party
          Warren: Maybe; probably needs 802.1AR
          
          Eliot Lear had a question on keying that will be taken to the list for
          purposes of time.
          
          
          Yang data model for Terminal Access Controller Access Control System Plus
          Bo Wu
          Draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang/
          10 minutes
          
          Joe (as chair): ietf-aaa should be a separate module
          
          Joe (as chair): Work seems consistent with opsawg; good that it's
          augmenting the system container in ietf-system
          
          Document has been read by a fair number of people in the room
          
          Joe (as chair): Please review this document and send to the list; more
          feedback and restructuring is needed before adoption
          
          A YANG Data Model for SD-WAN VPN Service Delivery
          Bo Wu
          Draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-opsawg-sdwan-service-model/
          10 minutes
          
          Charles Eckel: Thinks there is value in this draft, especially with the
          alignment to ME
            Works with both SDOs
            More work to do in MEF
            Terminology well-aligned
          
          Tim Carey: Is both IETF and MEF building models?
          Charles: There has been some work, but the consensus in MEF is that IETF
          is the right place for this
          
          Joe (as chair): More feedback from the list is required
          
          Tianran: A similar SD-WAN model has been posted in RTWG; what is the
          difference?
          Bo Wu: This work is focused on the SP providing a SD-WAN service only
          (only one domain), ONUG wants to focus on inter-domain SD-WAN
           ONUG feels that RTWG is more appropriate for their work
          
          Doug Montgomery: Is there an interlock between IETF and MEF?
          Bo Wu: Nothing formal has been established.  This is mostly opportunistic
          with interested parties trying to do the right thing.
          
          Doug Montgomery: Seems kind of opportunistic
          Charles Eckel: Nothing formal yet; right now it's people working together
          across SDOs to do the right thing; trying to be more agile with less
          overhead at the moment; people wants to see this done within the IETF
          
          Ignas: Situation described well as to why this ended up in different WGs
          Ignas: One concern: multiple interested groups building models around
          one common area; will those solutions be compatible?
          Ignas: no fundamental difference between SP and Enterprise; trying to
          separate so strictly may not be the right answer
          Ignas: For now, since the technology domain is in the IETF, that's why
          the work is being done here
          Charles Eckel: On the SP side, it's from the point of view of the
          customer to the SP; customer will not do anything with the underlay;
          high-level interface to the customer
          Charles Eckel: In ONUG, the customer operates the whole service (underlay
          and overlay); that model will have to be much more detailed; MEF will
          be much simpler
          
          YANG Data Model for Composed VPN Service Delivery
          Roni Even
          Draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-evenwu-opsawg-yang-composed-vpn/
          15 minutes
          
          A few people have read this draft
          
          Joe: What are your next steps?
          Roni Even: We want to adopt this draft and move it forward
          Joe: More comments are needed, especially from operators
          Joe: Who think this work is valuable?
          (Less hands than read it)
          
          Tianran: How does this module compare to the modules discussed in bess?
          Roni Even: This is a composed VPN that is composed from segment VPN
          Qin Wu: This is describing the services model vs. the network model
          
          Network Slice Provision Models
          Shunsuke Homma
          Draft:
          https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-homma-slice-provision-models-00
          15 minutes
          
          Joe: Where else are you considering presenting this?
          Shunsuke Homma: Not wanting to create a different definition
          
          Liang Geng (China Mobile): This has been discussed previously in Prague
          and London IETF meetings and in the COMS BoF; it was decided work would
          not proceed
          Shunsuke Homma: This work clarifies a concrete definition for slicing
          alone
          
          Tianran: What is meant by models?
          Laurent Ciavaglia: Provisioning models; will be presented in routing
          Friday; this is akin to the service models draft, which is why it may
          fit in opsawg
          Liang Geng: Would like this work to be done in IETF
          
          Ignas: BoF conclusion was that net slicing (overall) is not a problem
          for the IETF to solve; but partial problems are being worked on in routing
          Ignas: Orchestrating parts of NS is likely the right work for the IETF
          to do
          Liang Geng: Would like to see work done on this even if it's not called
          "slicing" per se
          
          Joe: This needs more review and likely more of the next steps (i.e.,
          the model developed) to see this work with in opsawg
          
          Joe: I'd like to see more reviews from the routing area on this; get
          domain expertise to ensure the models are defined correctly
          Tianran: I agree; more comments on list needed to move this work forward
          
          Framework for Automating Service and Network Management with YANG
          Qin Wu
          Draft:
          https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization-02.txt
          15 minutes
          
          Robin Li: Should include list of IETF modules within the draft
          Robin Li: There should be more coordination, perhaps in GitHub, for
          module development
          Robin Li: Will this only be presented in opsawg?
          Qin Wu: This was presented in RTGWG
          Joe had to cut the mic; more conversation will have to go to the list
          
          Network-wide Protocol Monitoring (NPM): Use Cases
          Yunan Gu
          Draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-npm-use-cases/
          10 minutes
          
          No time for comments at mic
          
          CCMIB
          https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-turner-ccmib
          Sean Turner
          5 minutes
          
          Sean wanted to socialize this work in the event someone else wants it, but
          ideally he'd like to see this just move to the IESG as an individual
          draft.
          
          "Sean wants no one to comment and no one commented"
          
          Sean's work will be AD-sponsored
          
          Ops-Area Section
          ---------------------
          Administrivia - scribes, minutes, etc.
          Warren / Ignas
          10 minutes
          
          No comments at the mic
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/opsawg/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -