Hi, Jonathan:
Thanks for taking stabbing into this draft and have a valuable review on
introduction and terminologies we defined and used in this draft.
See reply inline below.
发件人: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Jonathan Hansford
发送时间: 2020年7月31日 19:29
收件人: [email protected]
主题: [netmod] Review of draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang-09
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.
[Qin]: The proposed changes look good, thanks.
Page 3
1. Introduction
1st bullet should end in a semi-colon, not a period
[Qi]:Fixed, thanks.
2nd bullet:
s/large amount/large amounts
[Qin]:Fixed.
3rd bullet:
s/can not/cannot
[Qin]:Accepted.
s/disconnected from/not connected to
[Qin]:Okay.
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
[Qin]:Agree, thanks for your good suggestion.
Either
s/network management function/the network management function
Or
s/network management function/network management functions
[Qin]:I like your second proposed change.
s/server monitor/server to monitor
Is it a service or the server that is providing continuous performance
monitoring?
[Qin]: I think it is the server, your proposed change looks good.
s/monitoring and detect defects and failures and/monitoring, detect defects
and failures, and
[Qin]:Okay.
s/a ECA Policy/an ECA Policy
[Qin]:Fixed, thanks.
The second sentence of the penultimate paragraph on page 3 is too long,
confusing and unstructured. It needs re-writing.
[Qin]:Here is the rewriting text:
“
This document defines an ECA Policy management YANG data model. The ECA Policy
YANG allows the client to move the network management task to the server,
which provides the ability to control the configurations and monitor state
parameters, and take simple and instant action on the server when a trigger
condition
on the system state is met.
”
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.
[Qin]: I believe your understanding is correct, we have local PDP within the
server.
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"
[Qin]: Agree, but we actually redefine policy variable which doesn’t depend on
implicit policy variable or explicit policy variable any, I would rather remove
these terms and reference to RFC3460.
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".
[Qin]:I think your understanding is correct, we can include them in the
predefined terms. I haven’t figured out how to redefine notification, if you
have any proposal, please suggest.
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
[Qin]:Okay.
ECA Event:
Is something missing in this definition, should there be a period after
"processing", or should "Derived" not have a capital "D"?
[Qin]: Not sure why period is needed in this context.
s/extensible list/an extensible list
[Qin]: Sounds good.
Datastore Event: s/for a/for which a
Self Monitoring: I find it confusing that "Self Monitoring" encompasses both
monitor and control.
[Qin]: will remove control.
Self Healing:
s/discovery, and correction/discovery and correction
s/actions/Actions
s/system/the system
[Qin]: Good.
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?
[Qin]: See above, I prefer to redefine Policy variable which add dependency to
PV in RFC3460.
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
