Subject: [lmap] wg status and way ahead

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:49:26 +0300

Hi,

We (the chairs) had a conference call with our AD (Alissa) today to discuss
WG status and next steps. Here are the main points.

- in Berlin we agreed to submit revised versions of the information model
and data model I-Ds and send them to a second WGLC. The IM I-D was
submitted. Juergen, can you update the WG on the status of the DM model?
- 2nd WGLC - to be run in September.
- we shall plan for a virtual interim - target dates 10/5, 10/6, 10/7, or
10/10. You shall see soon a doodle poll from Jason; if unnecessary we shall
cancel
- we shall plan for a 90 min meeting at IETF 97; if unnecessary we shall
cancel
- we want to have the documents reviewed by a broader constituency; please
use your contacts to send them to review to operators in the different
communities (e.g. cable access industry) or regulators. we shall also
request an early OPS-DIR review

Please answer and comment on this plan.

Regards,

Jason and Dan

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:45:26 -0400

Hi Dan and Jason, thanks for the current status.

Over this WG’s life span, we’ve seen several drafts that
proposed to start work which was beyond LMAP’s current
charter. No one has spoken up for these ideas recently.

Perhaps it’s worthwhile to consider re-chartering anyway:
there may be some old/new/attractive proposals that come
forward, given the opportunity.

regards,
Al

From: lmap [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dan Romascanu
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:49 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lmap] wg status and way ahead

Hi,
We (the chairs) had a conference call with our AD (Alissa) today to discuss WG status and next steps. Here are the main points.
- in Berlin we agreed to submit revised versions of the information model and data model I-Ds and send them to a second WGLC. The IM I-D was submitted. Juergen, can you update the WG on the status of the DM model?
- 2nd WGLC - to be run in September.
- we shall plan for a virtual interim - target dates 10/5, 10/6, 10/7, or 10/10. You shall see soon a doodle poll from Jason; if unnecessary we shall cancel
- we shall plan for a 90 min meeting at IETF 97; if unnecessary we shall cancel
- we want to have the documents reviewed by a broader constituency; please use your contacts to send them to review to operators in the different communities (e.g. cable access industry) or regulators. we shall also request an early OPS-DIR review
Please answer and comment on this plan.
Regards,
Jason and Dan

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:52:47 +0200

> - 2nd WGLC - to be run in September.

There was a discussion around an lmap task registry and it might be
useful to get to some conclusions or directions. Right now, the
information model is not very consistent. In some parts, you find
phrases like

    This includes registry entries for the task and any configuration
    parameters"

or

    Both measurement and non-measurement Tasks have registry entries
    to enable the MA to uniquely identify the Task it should execute
    and retrieve the schema for any parameters that may be passed to
    the Task.

while at other places you find text that is restricting registry
things specifically to metric registries, e.g.

    Tasks and actions can be associated with entries in a metrics
    registry.

It seems that the older text was more generic registry text and I
think the newer text that talks specifically about metric registries
should be aligned to allow for other registries. This also includes
renaming ma-metric-registry-<something> to ma-registry-<something>.
If we can settle this, I can prepare -12 of the information model
relatively quickly and then this should be ready for the 2nd WG last
call.

For the data model, there is more editing work needed to align it with
the information model and to go through Martin's review comments. I
guess it is a day of editing work. I can try to squeeze this into next
week (but knowing the direction whether we forsee to support other
registries would help with that as well).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 22:45:25 +0300

Hi Juergen,

(speaking as contributor)

Does really the text point to a restriction?

It does not say 'ONLY with entries in a metrics registry'. Maybe the
current text is OK, but what is missing is a clarification.

I agree about the need for renaming.

Regards,

Dan

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 22:49:28 +0300

Hi Al,

As we said in the meeting at IETF 96 - now it's the time to discuss
proposals for old or new items for re-chartering. The floor is open. What
we miss is contributions, i.e. Internet-Drafts. But hey, it's still only
August 31st in my time zone.

Regards,

Dan

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:45 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> *From:* lmap [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Dan Romascanu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:49 AM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [lmap] wg status and way ahead
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We (the chairs) had a conference call with our AD (Alissa) today to
> discuss WG status and next steps. Here are the main points.
>