Thanks for Cc'ing ANIMA!
Discussions i think on the netmo mailing list, Cc. to iesg. That's what i just
did.
I did not have concerns about not seeing ANIMA mentioned explicitly in the
charter because no other working group is mentioned either, and i think there
is automation work goin on in others as well.
I did try to raise questions though on the netmo mailing list, which i am sure
will not be answered ;-) So i think i will stay confused around the exact
boundaries
of the charter scope. Aka: What really is "network management" compared to
whatever
is done in any other OPS WG, especially OPSAWG ?? There is no definition.
And to answer my question for ANIMA: IMHO, ANI is 100% network managemenet (and
automation).
When we start to go into actual ASA/AF functionality for services of the
data-plane,
that to me is the grey area, where i could say that it could be part of a
broader scope,
but i still wouldn't know what to call that larger scope
So maybe i am just overthinking If i simply was a network operator, i might
pragmatically
call the coffee machine in the office of the people negotiationg costs of brand
advertisements
of my network service provider company to be part of network management.
On the other hand, if the network was fully autonomic, and no human would need
to raise a
hand or trigger a brain cell for it to operate at 100% reliability and
performance - maybe
there is no network management then anymore ? That's the humanistic view ?? I
am still overthinking it.
Cheers
Toerless
On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 09:06:55AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Should this draft charter be extended to cover autonomics?
>
> "At the same time, simplifying the network management and
> operations, with increased automation, is a high priority."
>
> Answers to [email protected]
>
> Brian
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: WG Review: Network Management Operations (nmop)
> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2023 11:07:55 -0800
> From: The IESG <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> To: IETF-Announce <[email protected]>
> CC: [email protected]
>
> A new IETF WG has been proposed in the Operations and Management Area. The
> IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was
> submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your
> comments to the IESG mailing list ([email protected]) by 2023-12-14.
>
> Network Management Operations (nmop)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Current status: Proposed WG
>
> Chairs:
> TBD
>
> Assigned Area Director:
> Robert Wilton <[email protected]>
>
> Operations and Management Area Directors:
> Warren Kumari <[email protected]>
> Robert Wilton <[email protected]>
>
> Mailing list:
> Address: [email protected]
> To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmo
> Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmo/
>
> Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/nmop/
>
> Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-nmop/
>
> The increased drive by operators for integration and deployment of
> network management protocols and YANG data models highlights new issues
> and problems with the individual protocols and models, or the wider
> integration of those. Some of these problems are only witnessed when
> trying to manage large scale networks, e.g., due to the increased
> complexity and handling large volumes of data exported in frequent
> updates. At the same time, simplifying the network management and
> operations, with increased automation, is a high priority.
>
> The goals of the Network Management Operations working group are to
> solicit input from network operators to identify anticipated operational
> issues arising from the near term deployment of network management
> technologies, and to determine potential solutions or workarounds for
> those issues. Those operational issues may relate to deployments of
> existing network management technologies or the integration of related
> technologies for network management and telemetry.
>
> Solving those operational issues require discussion, investigation, and
> potentially some experiments, which may take some time, however the
> working group will focus on pragmatic items achievable in a short
> timeframe over long term architectural visions. Since the focus is on
> helping solve problems faced by operators, discussion and experiments
> are not solely limited to network management technologies standardized
> within the IETF but cover the wider ecosystem – however the working
> group will not work on improvements to protocols or data models
> developed and maintained outside the IETF.
>
> The Network Management Operations working group is scoped, in order of
> highest priority, to:
>
> * Present and discuss operational issues faced by deployment of network
> management technologies.
>
> * Incubate ideas and short term experiments on improving network
> management operations. Any experiments should focus on incremental
> improvements that can be achieved within 1-2 years.
>
> * Discuss network operator use cases and requirements for solving
> anticipated network management problems.
>
> * Liaise, informally, with developers of open-source software to help
> drive adoption of IETF network management standards and to improve
> protocol maturity.
>
> * Document operational experience and best practice for network
> management and telemetry deployment as BCPs or Informational RFCs.
>
> The WG charter does not currently include any IETF protocol or data
> model work, but the WG may decide to work on such items in future,
> subject to the following constraints:
>
> * Protocol extensions for protocols in scope for existing working groups
> must be taken to those working groups unless there is an agreement by
> the area director responsible for the working group and the
> Operations/Management area director to progress the enhancement within
> this working group.
>
> * OPSAWG remains the default working group to take small maintenance
> work for orphan network management specifications produced by
> concluded working groups unless there is particular operator interest
> and explicit agreement of the Operations/Management area director to
> progress the work here.
>
> * More significant protocol work (on existing or new protocols) should
> be taken to an existing or new working group. I.e., protocol work is
> not the core focus of this working group.
>
> * The working group charter and milestones must be updated beforehand to
> cover any protocol or data model work to be undertaken here.
>
> Agenda time is expected to be balanced between presentations and
> discussions of operator issues and experience, and other potential work
> within scope for the working group. The working group chairs will agree
> the topics and agenda time with the responsible area director, with an
> expectation that priority will be given to operator presentations.
>
> If there is consensus for the working group to focus on particular
> problems or issues, then those topics must be agreed with the
> responsible area director, and either the charter (potentially with
> updated milestones) or a working group wiki updated to document the
> current topics of focus.
>
> Like many of the “ops” working groups, this working-grouping is expected
> to be longer-lived, and is expected to remain open whilst there is
> sufficient interest and drive from the operators to work on the topics
> described above.
>
> Milestones:
>
> TBD
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
