Minutes IETF119: opsawg: Mon 05:30
minutes-119-opsawg-202403180530-00

What: Joint OpsAWG / OpsArea
When: 15:30 - 17:00 Monday Session III, March 18, 2024
Where: M3

OpsAWG Section

Administrivia - scribes, minutes, etc.
Tianran / Joe / Henk
5 min

A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-collected-data-manifest

Jean Quilbeuf
10 min

Joe - If you have a norm ref to the Netmod draft and it doesn't
progress?
Jean - We would have to do the copy paste version, but that wouldn't be
as effective.

Jan Lindblad - Look forward to merging or aligning the two drafts

Attachment Circuits Specifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac/
Mohamed Boucadair
10 min

No questions.

Simple Fixes, IPv6, TCP/UDP IPFIX Specs
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tcpo-v6eh/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix/
Mohamed Boucadair
5 min

Joe Clarke: Did you update the shepherd review with the latest changes.

Thomas Graf: Yes, I updated the shepherd review.

A YANG Data Model and RADIUS Extension for Policy-based Network Access
Control
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl/
Qiufang Ma
10 min

Tianran: Dependency on schedule YANG module, how can you move it to last
call.
Qiufang: Need to wait for adoption of that document, but they need to be
published together.
Henk: I've seen docs be stuck for 2.5 years. The module changed so much
that we may need to last-call it again.

A Common YANG Data Model for Scheduling
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang/
Qiufang Ma
5 min

Rob: Is this the right WG?
Qiufang: We proposed OPSAWG because there is one user draft in the same
WG.
Kent: Conditioanl-enablement, 3 ideas: inactive config, time based
scheduling. The inactive part of the core YANG language. At least worth
discussing which working group it would be best for it to go to.

A YANG model for Power Management
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-ivy-power/
Tony Li
5 min

David: Watt seems to be large as a unit?
Tony: aligned with OC, would be nice to have alignment between OC and
IETF.

Tony: presented to IVY, they sent us here

Qin: Could we have device-level energy saving?
Tony: yes because our model is recursive

Marisol: side meeting on thursday about different proposal for power
metrics.
Component device level, aligned with the ?? model

Joe: do we wait for ?? before adopting "green" works in OPSAWG
Rob: yes we wait until 120

Applying COSE Signatures for YANG Data Provenance
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance/
Diego R. Lopez
5 min

Joe: hackathon project planned?
Oscar: yes that’s the plan.

Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark/

Carlos Pignataro
5 min

Thomas Graf: I care. Would be nice to align on transit-nodes,
encapsulation nodes, ... OAM terminology.

Rob: Is this cross-WG, since IPPM is involved?
Adrian: Even cross-area

Joe: we could start this discussion from OPSAWG

From the chat...
Alex Huang Feng
06:28
I also support this work. I also sometimes find it confusing what are
the authors refering to when refering to the different types of OAM.

Adrian Farrel
06:30
Thanks Alex. That simply means we haven't done a good job, not that
you are confused. If you don't mind, can you drop a note to the list
to point up specific lack of clarity

Greg Mirsky
06:31
I believe that separating the topological part of OAM from the CoS is
inappropriate and misleading. Also, I cannot find real problem with
the existing definitions of OAM in IETF documents.

Alex Huang Feng
06:33
Well, just a simple example was in
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry where at first was inband
telemetry, but then the IPPM Wg pushed to change it to on-path
telemetry
I don't have a lot of specifics but I do find it useful having a
document having that classification so that everybody have the same
terms
Also, I haven't found the definition of "on-path telemetry" even
though we are already using it within the draft

Rob: Let’s ask the room about 'Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"'

"Is there an interest to adopt the OAM terminology work?""
Poll: 16 yes, 0 no, 19 no opinion

=== Exceeds time ===
Export of GTP-U Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-voyersriram-opsawg-ipfix-gtpu/
Sriram Gopalakrishnan
5 min

Qin: coordination with 3GPP needed?
Sriram: saw need for this coordination based on Bell Canada use case

Ops-Area Section

Administrivia - scribes, minutes, etc.
Warren/Rob/Mahesh
5 minutes

Rob thanks the group and introduces Mahesh as incoming OPS AD

Mahesh acknowledges Rob's service and thanks him for the transition

Benoit: Thanks to Rob. AD is a thankless job.

Joe: Thank you, Rob. He appreciates his leadership and mentorship

Mahesh: Plans: help to make YANG modules work better together and drive
more adoption of YANG models in the industry. Wants to see what comes
next/after RFC3535. What did we get right, and what do we do next to
enable true automation of the network.

EOM

Introduce New AD, Q&A
Mahesh Jethanandani
15 min

Open Mic