Thanks Himanshu, That all sounds reasonable.
Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Shah, Himanshu [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 25 May 2016 14:16 > To: [email protected]; 'Thomas Morin'; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang > > Hi Adrian - > > Appreciate your detail review and the comments. > Please see below inline responses to your comments.. > > Thanks, > Himanshu > > > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 'Thomas Morin'; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang > > Hi Thomas, > > I'm not opposed to this work at all. But I think that the extensive use of the word > "service" in the document may cause a load of confusion. > > As far as I can see, this YANG model is about operating and monitoring the > network components and protocols that are used to realize (deliver) the service. > This is all information that the network operator (service provider) cares about > deeply, and that the equipment vendor must understand. But a lot of it is beyond > the concern (or understanding) of the service consumer who has requested the > service. > > If I might compare with the work of L3SM, we need to distinguish between the > "service model" on the interface between the customer and the operator, and > the "service delivery model" on the northbound interface of an orchestrator". It > may be helpful to consider two separate conceptual components: a "service > orchestrator" that consumes a service model, and a "network orchestrator" that > consumes the model in this document and uses it to work out what to tell > protocols, network controller, etc. > > Perhaps the document could be enhanced by a little extra text explaining how > the model will be used. This need not be pages and pages, just a simple > statement that, for example, it is expected that this model will be used by the > management tools run by network operators in order to manage and monitor the > network resources that they use to deliver L2VPN services. > > [Himanshu>] Agreed. Will clarify the purpose of the draft as you suggest above. > > > Might I ask also that one sentence is removed from the Abstract *before* > adoption? > This is a > living document and contains aspects of object models that have been > discussed extensively in the working group with consensus. > It is not the place of the authors to claim consensus for the content of the > document: that call belongs to the WG chairs in response to targeted questions > to the WG. WG adoption is not a measure by which to determine consensus for > the content of the document, either. > > Additionally, the Introduction has: > The definition work is undertaken initially by a smaller > working group with members representing various vendors and service > providers. > I'm sure you don't mean to imply any subversion of the IETF process, and I am > equally sure that this is just a matter of English usage. > I think you need... > The definition work was initially undertaken initially by a small > group of co-authors with members representing various vendors and service > providers. > > [Himanshu>] Agreed on this as well. Did not mean to shortcut the due process at > IETF > [Himanshu>] > > Again, this change needs to be made before adoption. > > [Himanshu>] > [Himanshu>] Will update the draft to address your comments in the -00- version > of the WG draft. > Does that work for you? > > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin > > Sent: 04 May 2016 15:18 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang > > > > Hello working group, > > > > This email starts a two-week poll on adopting > > draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang [1] as a working group document. > > > > Please state on the list if you support adoption or not (in both > > cases, please also state the reasons). > > > > This poll runs until *May 25th*. > > > > This call runs in parallel with the adoption call on > > draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang hence the extended period. > > > > > > We are *coincidentally* also polling for knowledge of any other IPR > > that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in > > compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for > > more details). > > > > ==> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor please > > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > > relevant IPR. > > > > The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from > > each author and contributor. > > > > If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please > > explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet > > been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Martin & Thomas > > bess chairs > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BESS mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
