Hi,
Most of my comments are editorial and to date only address up to the end
of Section 2:
Page 1
Could the Abstract be simplified to:
This document defines a YANG data model for Event Condition Action
(ECA) policy management. The ECA policy YANG module provides the
ability to delegate some network management functions to the
server
which can take simple and instant action when a trigger condition
on
the system state is met.
Page 3
1. Introduction
1st bullet should end in a semi-colon, not a period
2nd bullet:
s/large amount/large amounts
3rd bullet:
s/can not/cannot
s/disconnected from/not connected to
4th bullet:
s/devices needs/devices need
s/hundeds/hundreds
I think a comma after "notifications" would make it easier to
parse the sentence which should end in a period, not a semi-colon
Either
s/network management function/the network management function
Or
s/network management function/network management functions
s/server monitor/server to monitor
Is it a service or the server that is providing continuous
performance monitoring?
s/monitoring and detect defects and failures and/monitoring, detect
defects and failures, and
s/a ECA Policy/an ECA Policy
The second sentence of the penultimate paragraph on page 3 is too
long, confusing and unstructured. It needs re-writing.
Page 4
2.1. Terminology
Might it be worth including definitions from RFC3198 "Terminology for
Policy-Based Management" as well, either to explain how this Internet
Draft aligns or where it deviates? For example:
o Policy Decision Point (PDP)
o Policy Enforcement Point (PEP)
o provisioned policy
It seems to me this Internet Draft provides support for provisioned
policies where the server is both the PDP and the PEP.
Neither "Implicit policy variable" nor "Explicit policy variable" are
defined in RFC3460, though it does introduce (but not formally define)
the following terms. Be good to properly align with the terms in the
RFC:
o "Implicit PolicyVariable", "Implicitly bound policy variable" and
"Implicitly defined policy variable"
o "Explicitly bound policy variable" and "Explicitly defined policy
variable"
Event: The definition of "Event" is a direct lift from RFC5277, so
shouldn't it just be included it in the list of predefined terms?
However, it appears the term that is actually used in the Internet Draft
is "Notification" (in the definitions of Server Event and Datastore
Event) and, since "Event" is such an overloaded term, it may be better
to define "Notification".
Event Stream is used in this Internet Draft, where "Stream" is
defined in RFC5277.
Condition: s/cause/causes
Action: s/Updates or invocations/Update or invocation
ECA Event:
Is something missing in this definition, should there be a period
after "processing", or should "Derived" not have a capital "D"?
s/extensible list/an extensible list
Datastore Event: s/for a/for which a
Self Monitoring: I find it confusing that "Self Monitoring"
encompasses both monitor and control.
Self Healing:
s/discovery, and correction/discovery and correction
s/actions/Actions
s/system/the system
Policy Variable (PV): It is rather confusing that this Internet Draft
both uses the definition of "policy variable" from RFC3460 and has its
own definition. Should we just rely on capitalisation to determine which
is meant?
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
