Hi Toerless, Please double check your slides in the meeting materials and let me know if there is any problem.
Thanks, Yingzhen On 11/14/20, 1:48 AM, "Toerless Eckert" <[email protected]> wrote: Slides uploaded via propose slide. Hope that worked... Cheers Toerless On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 07:12:42PM +0000, Yingzhen Qu wrote: > Hi Toerless, > > We??ll provide you a 20-mins slot in RTGWG Wednesday session. Would you please provide some details/pointers about your presentation? I need to update the agenda with the info so people have time to read up. > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > From: rtgwg <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 4:14 PM > To: Toerless Eckert <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>, ??????( 00419335) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Lizhenbin <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Guyunan <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: RTGWG-chairs: slot for RTGWG@109 to present on GRASP ? (was: Re: draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol (was: Re: IETF 105 mic comments on draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol)) > Toerless, > > We will provide a slot, most likely during the 2nd meeting. > Please send an email to RTGWG with a short intro so people who might be interested have the time read up. > > Thanks! > > Cheers, > Jeff > On Nov 10, 2020, 11:48 AM -0800, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>, wrote: > > I'd like to underline what Toerless said. I looked at the two use casess > in the protocol-assisted-protocol draft and they seem very easy to > map onto GRASP. I don't really have time before the meeting to do > that but they are certainly use cases we could have included in the > original use case BOF that led to ANIMA. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 11-Nov-20 05:57, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > In followup to the discuss on draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol: > > Checking RTGWG agenda, it seems you might still have time available, > so if you are interested, i would be happy to whip up a few slides > to five an overview of GRASP and how we imagine it to be useable > to automate operational workflows for various services, including > routing protocols. > > Cheers > Toerless > > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 05:52:35PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > I see subject draft is again on the agenda of RTGWG'109 and the authors also asked > for a slot to present to ANIMA (which we would be happy to have, time permitting). > > Some thoughts as contributor, maybe ANIMA chair: > > Reading the draft it looks like a reinvention of the ANIMA GRASP protocol > that we finished almost 3 years ago, but without many of the mechanisms > that make GRASP a well reuseable, easily extensible protocol. So i wonder > why we would want to also do another more imited protocol for the same > goals. > > On the mike RTGWG @IETF105, interest was raised to see a more comprehensive > signalling enxchange example. Version 03 of the document seems to have > expanded the BGP example a bit, but still not comprehensive enough for me > to understand if/how this approach would ultimately work. > > I would like to encourage the authors to concentrate on fully specifying > intended use-cases - ideally by simply specifying the use-case as > solution using GRASP (we call this GRASP objectives). I am sure > ANIMA participants (including me) would be happy to help explaining how > to specify such a protocol on top of GRASP once we understand the use-case. > > Cheers > Toerless > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:02:31AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > To repeat my comments from the microphone regarding this draft: > > We already have per-protocol operational and configuration state via the > IETF yang models for a given protocol. > > We also have mechanisms to fetch operational state for such protocols; e.g. > netconf and restconf. > > Rather than inventing a new mechanism to do troubleshooting for a protocol, > I'd suggest it makes better sense to augment existing IETF yang models to > include RPCs for interacting with troubleshooting for that protocol. > > -- Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg&data=04%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C1783663bf3e04584c4d008d888827083%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637409441120194999%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=syHLZW2J3aFagjDgsOx2mgNbQr115o5BVZ2Nt4tcB0k%3D&reserved=0 > > -- > --- > [email protected] > -- --- [email protected] _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
