Hi all, +1
Changes to the IM in the future do not necessarily imply that both the control/flow parts will be impacted. Even if both were impacted (e.g., simple augmentations to the CP/flow), nothing prevent to publish those in a single document even if we go for option 2 now. Cheers, Med (as contributor) De : Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> Envoyé : jeudi 27 mars 2025 11:00 À : Evans, John <jevan...@amazon.co.uk>; Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>; Evans, John <jevanamz=40amazon.co...@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com>; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net>; Pylypenko, Oleksandr <o...@amazon.com>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>; draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org Objet : Re: [OPSAWG]Re: draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel After some more thinking, I prefer option 2 (i.e., keeping the IPFIX work separate). One of the biggest reasons I think is that it will be easier to have experts review the draft. I am not strongly opposed to option 3, but it feels like needlessly combining work. Joe From: Evans, John <jevan...@amazon.co.uk<mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk>> Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 at 08:29 To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>>, Evans, John <jevanamz=40amazon.co...@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jevanamz=40amazon.co...@dmarc.ietf.org>> Cc: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>, Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com<mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>>, opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>, opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>, Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net<mailto:jh...@juniper.net>>, Pylypenko, Oleksandr <o...@amazon.com<mailto:o...@amazon.com>>, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>, draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org> <draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG]Re: draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel Hi Mahesh, Thanks for your feedback. Given we have the other draft, option 3 is relatively straightforward to do - albeit it feels a bit unwieldy. Any other feedback from the group? Cheers John On 21/03/2025, 22:34, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanand...@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote: [Speaking as a contributor] Hi John, The advantage that I see with Option 3, and the reason I believe Rob suggested is that if there is change in the IM model, you would need to update both YANG and the IPFIX model. From a tracking perspective, it would be easier to do that if they are all in the same draft. Cheers. > On Mar 22, 2025, at 4:56 AM, Evans, John > <jevanamz=40amazon.co...@dmarc.ietf.org > <mailto:40amazon.co...@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Based on feedback from the last meeting we moved from option 1 to option 2 > below. Rob Wilton proposed option 3 in the discussion at the WG meeting this > week. Hence, we would like to solicit feedback from the group on whether > there is consensus with the current approach (option 2 below), or whether > there is support to transition to option 3. > > As an author, I think there's value both in separating concerns and in making > incremental progress, hence my preference is to stick with option 2, > > 1. Previous approach: separate drafts for each IM and DM, e.g. > a. draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel > i. IM (YANG) > b. draft-ietf-opsawg-… > i. IM (references draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel) > ii. DM (YANG) > c. draft-evans-opsawg-ipfix-discard-class-ie > i. IM (references draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel) > ii. DM (IPFIX IE) > > 2. Current approach: one draft for YANG IM and YANG DM with other DMs in > subsequent drafts: > a. draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel: > i. IM (YANG) > ii. DM (YANG) > b. draft-evans-opsawg-ipfix-discard-class-ie > i. IM (references draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel) > ii. DM (IPFIX IE) > > 3. Alternative approach proposed by Rob Wilton: single draft for IMs and DMs, > e.g. > a. draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel > i. IM (YANG) > ii. DM (YANG) > iii. DM (IPFIX IE) > > cheers > > John > > > ----------------------- > From: "Evans, John" <jevan...@amazon.co.uk <mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk>> > Date: Tuesday 4 March 2025 at 10:29 > To: "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>" > <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>, Benoit > Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com <mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>>, > "opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>" <opsawg@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>, "opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>" <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>, Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net > <mailto:jh...@juniper.net>>, "Pylypenko, Oleksandr" <o...@amazon.com > <mailto:o...@amazon.com>> > Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org > <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org>" > <draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org > <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel > > Hi All, > > We've checked in a updated version of draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel. The > most significant change is that it incorporates both the YANG information > model, and the YANG data model derived from the information model – as was > proposed after the last meeting: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel/> > > We have also checked in a complementary draft, which defines a new IPFIX > Information Element for classifying flow-level discards that aligns with the > information model defined in draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-evans-opsawg-ipfix-discard-class-ie/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-evans-opsawg-ipfix-discard-class-ie/> > > We would appreciate feedback from the group to see if we have consensus on > this approach, i.e.: > 1. draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel: > a. IM (YANG) > b. DM (YANG) > 2. draft-evans-opsawg-ipfix-discard-class-ie > a. IM (references draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel) > b. DM (IPFIX IE) > > The alternative would be to have a discrete draft for the information model, > e.g.: > > 1. draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel > a. IM (YANG) > 2. draft-ietf-opsawg-… > a. IM (references draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel) > b. DM (YANG) > 3. draft-evans-opsawg-ipfix-discard-class-ie > a. IM (references draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel) > b. DM (IPFIX IE) > > > Cheers > > John > > > From: "Evans, John" <jevan...@amazon.co.uk <mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk>> > Date: Friday 22 November 2024 at 13:43 > To: "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>" > <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>, Benoit > Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com <mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>>, > "opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>" <opsawg@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>, "opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>" <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>, Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net > <mailto:jh...@juniper.net>>, "Pylypenko, Oleksandr" <o...@amazon.com > <mailto:o...@amazon.com>> > Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org > <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org>" > <draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org > <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel > Resent from: <alias-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>> > Resent to: <akad...@cisco.com <mailto:akad...@cisco.com>>, > <jevan...@amazon.co.uk <mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk>>, <jh...@juniper.net > <mailto:jh...@juniper.net>>, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>, <o...@amazon.com > <mailto:o...@amazon.com>> > Resent date: Friday 22 November 2024 at 13:42 > > Hi Med / Benoit / Jeff / All, > > I agree re option 2. If there are no objections we’ll refactor the draft on > that basis. > > Cheers > > John > > From: "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>" > <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> > Date: Friday 22 November 2024 at 07:35 > To: Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com > <mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>>, "Evans, John" <jevan...@amazon.co.uk > <mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk>>, "opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>" > <opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>, "opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>" <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>> > Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org > <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org>" > <draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org > <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org>> > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel > Resent from: <alias-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>> > Resent to: <akad...@cisco.com <mailto:akad...@cisco.com>>, > <jevan...@amazon.co.uk <mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk>>, <jh...@juniper.net > <mailto:jh...@juniper.net>>, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>, <o...@amazon.com > <mailto:o...@amazon.com>> > Resent date: Friday 22 November 2024 at 07:35 > > Hi Benoît, all, > > I think that I can convince myself that option 2 is better here (have both > IM/DM in the same spec). The main challenge will be to find “where” to anchor > the nodes (interface, NE, routing management, etc.). Otherwise, I expect the > structures/groupings we already have in the IM will be reused nicely. > However, we will need to register the IM as well as we need to import it. > > I’m not sure to understand the last part of the following: > > == > 3. Should information models specified in YANG also be registered in IANA? > This is where we might have different views. As mentioned during the meeting: > "If you have it in IANA, then people will expect tooling to work.". > = > > The tooling (pyang, etc.) still work even with the current IM in the draft. > Also, the module can be imported/augmented/etc. > > Please note that even **fake** modules were registered! Think about > ietf-template for example: > > == > ietf-template > ietf-templ...@2010-05-18.yang<mailto:ietf-templ...@2010-05-18.yang> > <mailto:ietf-templ...@2010-05-18.yang> N > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-template temp [RFC6087] > === > > Thank you. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com > <mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>> > Envoyé : jeudi 21 novembre 2024 18:22 > À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com <mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>>; > Evans, John <jevan...@amazon.co.uk <mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk>>; > opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; > opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> > <mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> > Cc : Pylypenko, Oleksandr <o...@amazon.com <mailto:o...@amazon.com>>; Jeff > Haas <jh...@juniper.net <mailto:jh...@juniper.net>>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed > INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>; Aviran Kadosh (akadosh) > <akad...@cisco.com <mailto:akad...@cisco.com>> > Objet : Re: draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel > > > Dear all, > > Joe and I spoke. As we see it, there are multiple questions here. > > 1. Is the IETF interested into standardizing information models? > As mentioned by Mahesh (in the OPSAWG meeting minutes, to be posted soon): > "generally we don't spend too much time on info models and work on > standardise data models". However, we believe, as we accepted the discard > information as WG document already, let's not revisit this decision. > > 2. How should those information models be specified? > Could be text, UML, whatever. > YANG is also a possibility (even if not common practice) as YANG is a data > modeling language. As John mentioned during the meeting, one argument in the > favor of YANG is that it's well known. > > 3. Should information models specified in YANG also be registered in IANA? > This is where we might have different views. As mentioned during the meeting: > "If you have it in IANA, then people will expect tooling to work.". > > What do we do from here? > 1. Information model published as informational document: YANG model in an > appendix, not normative. In such a case, you don't register the YANG module > in IANA. > 2. Information and data models in a single standards-track document, with the > data model registered as a YANG module with IANA. > > Number 2 might be better, as you mentioned that there are existing > implementations. Plus it might ease maintainability and give other > implementations something to root to and augment. This might also be the path > of least resistance to publish. The YANG model in IANA would also justify the > fact that you moved from Informational to Standard Track in this version > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel/03/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel/03/>) > > Jeff, at the microphone during the OPSAWG meeting, mentioned the issue of > evolving/maintaining information models before going to a data model. We are > not too sure how publishing an information model as RFC (as opposed to a WIKI > or something similar) is actually helping out. > > Regards, Joe and Benoit > On 11/13/2024 11:19 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: > As a contributor, I think a data model approach would be far more useful. > That said, I haven’t seen these proprietary implementations based on your > draft info model to understand how they deviate or what data modeling > approach they take. I still think that starting with a YANG data model > wouldn’t preclude future drafts standardizing IPFIX-based approaches to > packet discard reporting (just as we’ve seen MIBs move to YANG). > > As a chair, I think it would be easier from a process standpoint if this was > a data model. There just isn’t a lot (any?) info models in the IETF developed > in YANG. That said, things don’t always have to be easy, and Med has already > commented having a YANG info model is not an insolvable problem. > > I know Benoît is a bit busy, and I’m sure he’ll want to weigh in next week. > > Joe > > From: Evans, John mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk <mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk> > Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 06:53 > To: mailto:opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> mailto:opsawg@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>, mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> > Cc: Pylypenko, Oleksandr mailto:o...@amazon.com <mailto:o...@amazon.com>, > Jeff Haas mailto:jh...@juniper.net <mailto:jh...@juniper.net>, > mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> > mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>, > Aviran Kadosh (akadosh) mailto:akad...@cisco.com <mailto:akad...@cisco.com> > Subject: draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel > Hi All, > > Following last week's discussion in Dublin regarding > draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel, we would appreciate feedback from the working > group and chairs on how to proceed. > > To provide context, we initially defined an information model to establish a > common framework for discard reporting that could be implemented across > different data models, such as YANG and IPFIX. > > We selected YANG to define the information model for three key reasons: 1) > the RFC8791 extensions enable the model to be decoupled from specific > implementations; 2) this approach allows for lossless translation to a > YANG-based data model; 3) the community has extensive experience with YANG. > > During the discussion, two main perspectives emerged: continue with the > current approach of defining an information model; redefine the draft as a > data model. > > Given that the information model is already in YANG, creating data models for > interface, device, and control-plane would be straightforward. This could > also serve as a reference for a future IPFIX-based discard reporting data > model. > > Hence, we would appreciate feedback on whether the best path forward is to > continue with the current information model approach or to refocus on > developing data models instead? > > thanks > > John > > > > > Amazon Data Services UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales with > registration number 09959151 with its registered office at 1 Principal Place, > Worship Street, London, EC2A 2FA, United Kingdom. > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > > > Amazon Data Services UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales with > registration number 09959151 with its registered office at 1 Principal Place, > Worship Street, London, EC2A 2FA, United Kingdom. > > > > > > > Amazon Data Services UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales with > registration number 09959151 with its registered office at 1 Principal Place, > Worship Street, London, EC2A 2FA, United Kingdom. > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> > <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to > opsawg-le...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org> > <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org> Amazon Data Services UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales with registration number 09959151 with its registered office at 1 Principal Place, Worship Street, London, EC2A 2FA, United Kingdom. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
