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