Monday November 6th. 13:00pm

Initial revision of the WG Status done by the Chairs.

Adopted Work Section

  1. IPFIX Fixes / Enhancements
    Mohamed BOUCADAIR

    Presenters: Benoit Claise & Mohamed Boucadair
    Four IEs to report multiple changes in the IPV6 Header. It is
    including a dependency reference between the whole set of IEs.
    Authors considered Destination options and hop-by-hop options are
    out scope.
    Joe Clarke: Asked for opinions on this.
    Rob Wilton: Agrees with leaving it out scope and starting a new
    process to include it, only until it is nedeed.
    Joe Clarke: No need to split to separate docs unless necessary.
    [On question of whether to split docs: One of TCP and another one
    for IPv6 EHs]
    Authors asked to WGLC for the I-Ds presented.

  2. A YANG Data Model and RADIUS Extension for Policy-based Network
    Access Control

    Presenter: Qiufang Ma
    Joe Clarke (contributor hat): Why did the group id change from
    an integer to a string?
    Qiufang: Because it is easier to encapsulate? [I didn't get the
    end, but perhaps covered by the next slide anyway]
    Med(chat): Joe, the rationale for the change of the id to string
    can be seen at:
    https://github.com/boucadair/policy-based-network-acl/issues/8. I
    think we need to have some text about this echoed in the spec.
    Joe(chat): Yes. The hierarchy sounds interesting, but there is
    no text to that effect.
    Joe Clarke: Please send details of the side meeting to the list.

    Med(chat): Added an issue for this point:

  3. A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data

    Presenter: Jean Quilbeuf (remote)
    Rob Wilton: On the example on the right (slide 4), when you send
    the data does it get sent when the subscription(?) is set up, or do
    you send more frequently?
    Jean: Idea is to have an onchange subscription. Only when there
    is a change in the subscription configuration do we need to update
    it. Onchange works for this.
    Joe Clarke: There is a side meeting on Tuesday 16:00 to 16:30 to
    see the integration with Topology (RFC8345), so session is open to
    add comments on this draft.

Other Work Section

  1. An Information Model for Packet Discard Reporting
    Presenter: John Evans
    Greg Mursky: You refer to active and passive. Are these as
    described in RFC 7799?
    John: Use active monitoring to mean probes on the network to
    detect loss and passive to mean data direct from device
    Greg: RFC7799 established 3 types: active, passive and something
    in between. Hybrid can be seen as onpath telemetry. Data traffic can
    be enhanced to instrument monitoring perf. By active do you mean
    injecting test packets specifically constructed as well as using
    John: Don't mean hybrid. Really mean passive. Hybrid not
    fundamentally solving the problem.
    Greg: Still believe hybrid could be used in some cases.
    John: Focus here is on unsampled accurate measuring, measuring ?
    loss with cause.
    Greg Mursky: When you have measurements, is there an evaluation
    step that decides whether we are above/below the threshold for
    John: Yes. Covered more later in slide 11.
    Rob Wilton: Anything that clarifies the meaning of the counters
    is great. Want to get more towards the data models and information
    models though.
    Rob (continued): Do still wonder when it comes down to
    populating counters, sometimes it's hard because the counters
    doesn't quite match the model. It's always a bit of a compromise
    about how you "fudge them in". Maybe add an exceptions counter for
    John: Any classification scheme doesn't have a perfect fit. But
    would like vendors to expose the underlying mapping to the classes.

    Rob: When the MIB counters were defined, as the hardware evolved
    they moved towards the meaning of the MIB counters (over a long
    time, say 20 years).
    Thomas Graf: Have you considered increasing the scope not only
    for dropped packets, but also to include causality eg of packets
    sent to the control plane?
    John: Trying to keep this work clean on discards. But same
    concepts would apply to other areas.
    Thomas: See some relationship with ipfix + forwarding status.
    Have another document updating forwarding status. A few reason codes
    not supported there. Would be interesting to see how those reason
    codes could be updated.
    Benoit Claise: The information model is important and the
    mapping needs to be right. For [notetaker didn't catch this] have
    4 different states: unknown, forwarded, drop and consume. Doesn't
    quite go into the detail you want, but is what you're trying to do.

    John: (general agreement)
    Joe Clarke: These various questions/points Would be a great
    discussion to have on the list.

  2. Incident Management for Network Services

    Presenter: Qin Wu
    ShowOfHands: Is there interest in adopting this draft? 18 yes, 1
    no, 59 no opinion
    Joe Clarke: Might be worth taking to the list.
    Rob Wilton Slide 6. Not clear how you correlate the two alarm
    layers together. Also, are you reporting these as separate layer
    alarms or combining them together into a generic "incident alarm"?
    If you define a generic incident alarm, interesting problem about
    how you preserve alarm-specific data.
    Olga Havel: Wanted to comment about relationship to topology and
    layering. Different things topology needs to connect to. Maybe it
    would be good to do it in some generic way from the topology itself.

  3. Applying COSE Signatures for YANG Data Provenance

    Presenter: Diego R. Lopez
    Alex Huang-Feng: For the CBOR encoding it would be transparent
    as JSON so no issue.
    Alex (continued): Also have a comment about how to validate the
    message. This signature placement is important and the way you use
    it breaks validation. How can you know whether there is a signature
    or not because you're changing the Yang module. Could place the
    signature in the yang push header?
    Alexander: Don't need to modify Yang push. Believe it can be
    easily accommodated.
    Rob Wilton: Yang packages draft: one concept being considered
    there was adding checksums to the files. Was removed from the latest
    version because people weren't sure whether it was a necessary
    complexity. One thing we were struggling with is: what is the
    checksum of a Yang file? eg does it include whitespace or is it
    based on a canonical representation of the file? Not giving a
    specific direction, just want the author to be aware of this as a
    potential issue.
    Joe Clarke: Sounds like there's potential for discussion on

  4. Mapping YANG Data to Label-Set Time Series
    Presenter: Kristian Larsson (remote)
    Joe Clarke (contributor hat): Notice that you mapped the path
    separator as an underscore as well as you mapped dashes to
    underscores. Seen in other projects that path separator gets mapped
    to two underscores.
    Kristian: Excellent suggestion. Will touch on it in slide 4.
    Rob Wilton: What is the overlap with Thomas's work on Kafka
    schema, etc.
    Thomas Graf: It complements very well with the work we're doing.
    At the end we need TS data. The work we are proposing is preserving
    the yang push message and the schema end-to-end.
    Benoît: YANG (streaming telemetry) in TSDB is necessary next
    step for the industry. Thanks Kristian.

Ops-Area Section

Administrivia - scribes, minutes, etc.
Warren / Rob

Open Mic
15 minutes (as needed)

Benoit: Lots of ops-related side meetings (perhaps more
interesting). Perhaps those with side meetings can do a lightning talk
on what they are about.
Warren: Fantastic. Please remember, side meetings are not official,
but for informational purposes they can pitch their meetings
Benoit: There is on on SRv6 management later on today. Tomorrow is
on YANG and Kafka, followed by digital map. Wednesday, is issues with
OpenConfig and network management
Rob: Check the side meeting wiki for side meetings
Warren: Check the wiki, again, side meetings are not official

Qin: Time schedule and user-based ACL is coming up Wednesday and
incident management's side meeting is tomorrow
Warren: Check the wiki to find interesting side meetings. People
hosting side meetings should add a description for their meeting.

Rob: PLEASE provide your NOMCOM feedback! Now is the time.
Warren: If you don't provide feedback, you got no right to complain.


=== End Monday Meeting Slot ===

Wednesday November 8th. 13:00pm

  1. Sustainability Insights

    Presenter: Snezana Mitrovic
    Daniele Ceccarelli (IVY cochair): My feeling is that part of
    this work is related to inventory and you just confirmed it. Just to
    let you know there is some work in ivy related to this. Consider
    splitting inventory into ivy and non-inventory here.
    Snezana: Yes. Addressed on slide 4.
    Warren: Better if we focused just on the power part and skipped
    CO2eq etc. The latter is nice to do in the future.
    Snezana: Agreed. Draft focuses on the power -- that's what we
    can do right now.
    Marisol Palmero: Might be more side meetings around the general
    topic of sustainability in the future.
    Joe Clarke: Question for ADs: Sounds like there might be other
    projects interested doing this sort of stuff. Is this the right WG?

    Rob Wilton: Maybe. Is there interest in doing this work?
    Warren: "Doing this sort of stuff" -> hand-wavy. We should be
    asking are we interested in looking at impact with particualr
    constraints -- eg "just the energy". Can quickly get unwieldy eg
    with supply chain, upstream/downstream impact.
    ShowOfHands: Is there interest in this topic? 20 yes, 2 no, 54
    no opinion

    Marisol Palmero: Should we go to IETF, should we go to
    OpenConfig? This is a use case that needs to be solved now. Don't
    have 5 years.
    Joe Clarke: In my opinion this is a good place but might be
    desire to spin another WG.
    Rob Wilton: Not big enough for another WG. Would rather it
    starts here than move somewhere else. (Speaking personally) let's
    get on with this.
    Warren: Following on from that, there has been some discussions
    on forming an "Energy Consumption" WG. Reasonable idea is to start
    here on the understanding that it might move to another WG in the

  2. Joint Exposure of Network and Compute Information for
    Infrastructure-Aware Service Deployment


    Presenter: Jordi Ros Giralt
    Adrian Farrel (Cochair of cats WG): Cats has a specific charter
    item to work on compute metrics. Compute metrics have specific needs
    for specific applications. May find that grouping them together
    makes them unusable in any application. So work out very carefully
    what it is you need to know for the thing you're trying to do, then
    move on to the metrics.
    Rob Wilton: Thanks Adrian. Looking at slide 2, within IETF the
    plan is that alto will finish its documents and likely close. Alto
    will probably disappear from the picture on this slide. Therefore is
    the only consumer cats? If so, maybe working on this within cats is
    a better choice. But do take Adrian's point that cats' definition
    may be tighter than what's discussed here.
    Adrian: Let me give an example. Cats is trying to steer traffic
    in the here and now ("have a service request, this is the compute we
    need"). Other apps may be asking "where are we going to spin
    containers, where are we going to do truck rolls". Very different
    metrics needed there.
    Jordi: Not about defining metrics that are good for everything.
    When you do service placement, which is another important lifecycle
    step, definitely don't want to use the same metrics as cats because
    want to look deeply in the infrastructure.
    Joe Clarke: Notice draft was published on the cutoff date.
    Encourage you to discuss more widely (eg side meetings, the list,
    cats etc) to decide where this belongs.

  3. Modeling the Digital Map based on RFC 8345: Sharing Experience and

    Presenter: Olga Havel
    Rob Wilton: Are you asking to open RFC 8345 to do a bis to fix
    it, or do augmentations to fix it, or something else?
    Olga: bis would be ideal.
    Rob: Is it extensions to the base model, or NBC changes to it?
    Olga: Could do it using augmentation but preference is to do the
    bis. Proposal is it is backwards compatible.
    Rob: Might be good to take this question to the list.
    Italo Busi: Some of this is already addressed by RFC 8795 in
    TEAS WG in a generic way. Better to reuse this solution rather than
    defining different solutions for OSPF, IS-IS and TE.
    Joe Clarke: Take it to the list.
    ACTION ITEM: Query on-list for appetite to take on bis work for

    1. This can kick off some additional discussion around the topic.
  4. IPFIX Alternate-Marking Information
    Presenter: Giuseppe Fioccola
    (there were no questions or comments)

  5. A YANG Data Model for Network Diagnosis by scheduling sequences of
    OAM tests


    Presenter: Luis M. Contreras
    Balazs: We see a lot of scheduler type items. Should we have a
    general scheduler model in Yang instead of everyone defining their
    Luis: We have a side meeting in this IETF working on this
    scheduling stuff. Would be open to pulling out common elements,
    finding a common approach/model, etc.
    Balazs: Would like to see this in netmod.
    Rob Wilton: Interesting idea. Why are they defined as config
    nodes rather than rpc and action?
    Victor: I can answer this. If there is a reflector, we need to
    configure the reflector. But you are right: how to trigger the
    models, etc will need to incorporate feedback from the group.
    Joe Clarke: Let's discuss this on the list.

  6. YANG modeling for routing topologies


    Presenter: Oscar González de Dios
    Joe Clarke: Are you presenting this in routing?
    Oscar: Not this time.