[Nsi-wg] [NSI imp] NSI implementation call cancelled

[Diederik Vandevenne]

Hi everyone,

I want to react to John’s e-mail from the 5th of March "NSI implementation call cancelled" and hear the opinion of the whole NSI community on how to go forward.

> I know we are a very opinionated group with a lot of good feedback; however, we need to make progress on key issues before production implementations can be deployed.  For this reason we need people with ideas and constructive feedback on the key topics to get it down in contributions with clearly defined solutions that meet the requirements and fit into the NSI Service Framework.  We do not want contributions that redefine the existing NSI architecture and throw out 5 years worth of requirements, so please keep it focused and on track. 

I partly agree with John. In my opinion, the most important key issues at this moment are the NSI identifier format (and the identifier versus address issue), the NSI Discovery and Topology Services (as they are similar) and the security of those services (including “Verification of topology”). Despite the fact their is little discussion on the mailing lists, it seems it is hard to agree to a specific solution and some members are even implementing their own ideas. 

However, I do not think that pushing forward and creating standards is the best route to take. Maybe we have to hold back a moment and think about what we really want to accomplish. The requirements from 5 years back may not reflect the needs we see now. 

I think the NSI identifier and/or address format is related to the distribution of topology information. We can only agree on a solution if we see the full picture and thus we should merge those two problems. 

In general, the proposal from ESnet about the NSI Discovery and Topology Services might be the best solution (with some little changes and additions) if we hold to the requirements from 5 years back and the current architecture of the Network Services Framework (Are those requirements documented somewhere?). However, I have some issues with it and I am not sure if it will work the way we want it to. I have attached a list of issues to this e-mail. 

My question to the community is if this is really what we want? Or do we want to take a better look at the requirements first to be able to come up with a better solution that fit our needs? I have attached a list of requirements I have to this e-mail to make a start. I would like you to ask to make your own list of requirements and send it to the mailing list.

I do have my own ideas about how to approach the NSI Discovery and Topology Services problem. However, my solution does not fit the current requirements and Network Services Framework, although it has similarities. I will present an architectural overview later. If anyone is interested in it, I might spend more time to it. If everyone thinks we should stick to the solution proposed by ESnet and the current requirements, I will put my energy in that and other issues we still have.

My goal is to contribute to a solution that meets the requirements of the community and to start a constructive conversation about how to go forward. I have no intentions to create more separation in the group.

The documents I present here and the ideas I have are influenced by the regular talks I had with Miroslav (UvA) and Freek (SURFsara). However they may have another opinion on some parts so I do not speak for anyone but myself. 


Kind regards,

Diederik




SURFsara heeft een nieuw algemeen telefoonnummer: 020 800 1300

| Diederik Vandevenne | Infrastructure Services  | SURFsara |
| Science Park 140 | 1098 XG | Amsterdam |
| T 06 4798 8196 | diederik.vandevenne at surfsara.nl | www.surfsara.nl |

________________________________________
From: John MacAuley [macauley at es.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:08 AM
To: NSI implementation group; NSI Working Group
Subject: [NSI imp] NSI implementation call cancelled

Peoples,

I have decided to cancel this Wednesday's NSI implementation call.  I do not believe the call would be productive and we should all be preparing for the face-to-face in Atlanta in less than two weeks.

We have had some good discussions since the meetings in Oxford, but I am not completely happy with the overall progress.  To quote Scrum terminology: we have very few pigs and a whole lot of chickens.  We need more pigs.

I know we are a very opinionated group with a lot of good feedback; however, we need to make progress on key issues before production implementations can be deployed.  For this reason we need people with ideas and constructive feedback on the key topics to get it down in contributions with clearly defined solutions that meet the requirements and fit into the NSI Service Framework.  We do not want contributions that redefine the existing NSI architecture and throw out 5 years worth of requirements, so please keep it focused and on track.

Here are the items that need to be addressed in the Atlanta meetings.  It is long and I know we do not have a lot of time.  I will discuss with Guy to determine in which time slots the topics are best discussed.

·      NSI identifier format (STP, et al.)
·      NSA Discovery Document (John to present overview and next steps)
·      NSI Discovery Service (John to present overview of his solution, ?)
·      NSI Topology Service (if distinct from Discovery Service)
·      Verification of topology information (Chin)
·      User security (Hans to present SURFnet solution)
·      Ethernet extensions (John and Freek)
·      NML Adaptation (John and Freek)
·      NSI-EXT document (John)

Are there additional topics to discuss?

If you are planning on contributing a presentation or formal document please let me know so we can allocate you a time slot.  This is your chance to shed those feathers and be a resplendent pig.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: NSI-Discovery-Topology-Distribution-Requirements.txt
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20140312/66b69878/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Issues-ESnet-Proposal.txt
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20140312/66b69878/attachment-0001.txt>