Subject: [lmap] LMAP charter - What's next?

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:07:47 +0200

Dear all,

 From the LMAP BoF, I understood that the multiple domains situation was 
the initial goal.
The charter mentions:
     A key assumption constraining the initial work is that the 
measurement system is
     under the control of a single organization (for example, an 
Internet Service Provider or
     a regulator).
This assumption was taken into account so that the WG would not deal 
with the security and the inter-provider SLA aspects related to multiple 
domains. So basically a simplifying assumption, at least for now!
Now, the discussion right now is that LMAP should not specify the 
protocol to be used (and as a consequence the associated data model(s)). 
While this builds on the simplifying assumption, it contradicts the 
initial goal.

Yes, I understand that ISPs have developed proprietary protocols, to 
fulfill a LMAP type of framework.
Yes, I understand that the regulators could receive the required 
information from these ISPs, who could aggregate the information from 
their own framework

It's a fact that there are different device types and use cases, but not 
shooting for THE recommendation would be a missed opportunity. We should 
have a consistent MA implementation, including control and reporting. 
Across ISPs, across vendors, ideally across use cases. A good example, 
already mentioned on the list, is DOCSIS for cable modem: a typical 
device that you can buy at the local store, and it just works. We should 
shoot for something similar in LMAP. Let's not forget that the end goal 
is not only for a branch office/managed service type of device, but also 
for devices bought directly from BestBuy by the average man in the street.

We all agree that the information model is key here. We should really 
strive to have an industry wide consensus on this. This is where the 
liaisons will play a big role.
 From the current charter proposal at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lmap/charter/
OLD:

    The LMAP working group will coordinate with other standards bodies
    working in this area (e.g., BBF, IEEE 802.16, ETSI), and other IETF
    working groups in the areas of data models, protocols, multiple
    interface management, and measurement of performance metrics.

NEW:

    The LMAP working group will coordinate with other standards bodies
    working in this area (e.g., BBF, IEEE 802.16, ETSI) regarding the
    information model, and other IETF working groups in the areas of
    data models, protocols, multiple interface management, and
    measurement of performance metrics.

It's a small change, but it emphasis two points.
1. information model is key.  Btw, an information model specific 
deliverable is a good thing.
2. The IETF can't impose any protocol/data model(s) to other SDOs. 
However, having information model consistency is a step in the right 
direction for the industry.

What would be a WG failure IMHO is if this WG comes up with a complex 
matrix of architecture profiles such as: if the MA runs on a device that 
has a [DSL|DOCSIS|WIRELESS[MOBILE|HOMENET|PC|you-name-it] function, then 
the right [control|reporting] protocol is the combination of 
[SNMP|NETCONF|HTTPS|IPFIX|IPDR|TR69|IPDIR|you-name-it] with the 
combination of [MIB module, YANG modules, IPFIX IE, you-name-it] data 
models, mapping to the version X of the information model.
Something to keep in mind is the cost associated with the proxies: 
protocol proxies and data models proxies.
And not only the development costs, but also the maintenance costs (this 
is where the version comes into play in my previous sentence.

Now, let's be realistic: even if the IETF "imposes" a pair of MUST use 
protocol/data model in a specification, the market will decide at the 
end. We have seen that multiple times at the IETF.

So what are the next steps for LMAP?
1. I updated the proposed charter text. See 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lmap/charter/
I tried to include all editorial comments from the list. If I miss one 
on which there is apparent consensus, let me know.
2. the charter will go for IESG internal review on the next IESG 
telechat on June 13th. A  ballot will be created asking the IESG and IAB 
whether the charter is ready for external review.
3.  After the IESG telechat on June 13th, assuming that it's approved 
for external review, the Secretariat will change the state to "External 
Review" and announce it on iesg-announce and new-work. They'll also 
schedule it for the next telechat, two weeks later.
4.  When the external review period is over (normally the Monday before 
the telechat), and a second ballot will be created that allows the IESG 
to ballot final approval.

The milestones are in place to have the WG created before the IETF in 
Berlin... if all goes well.

I would like to thank all participants for the fruitful discussions 
regarding the charter.
Time to work on your drafts ;-)

Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)