Hi Carl, Thank you for the comments. It's a valuable feedback from the author of the associated RFC. Although informational, as a working group action, I hope the document can represent the community consensus.
Cheers, Tianran > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Moberg (camoberg) [mailto:camob...@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 6:31 PM > To: Tianran Zhou > Cc: net...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] Cross-post to Netmod for LC comments//FW: WG LC for > Service Models Explained > > Tianran, OPSAWG, > > Now that RFC8199 is published, I have two (somewhat associated) points > of high-level feedback on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained: > > - The term “Network Service Model” in RFC 8199 is intended to cover both > "Customer Service Model” as well as “Service Delivery Model” as defined > in draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained. At the time of the first > revision of what was > draft-bogdanovic-netmod-yang-model-classification > we discussed further splitting "Network Service Model” into smaller > components, but decided against it since we did not see a consensus on > what that split would look like. I believe the authors here is > suggesting such a further split. > > There is one specific passage in this draft that I would suggest could > use rephrasing if the authors agree to the above: > > """ > As previously noted, [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification] > provides a classification of YANG data models. It introduces the > term "Network Service YANG Module" to identify the type of model used > to "describe the configuration, state data, operations and > notifications of abstract representations of services implemented on > one or multiple network elements." These are service delivery models > as described in this document, that is, they are the models used on > the interface between the Service Orchestrator or OSS/BSS and the > Network Orchestrator as shown in Figure 3. > """ > > - And this gets to my second point of feedback. Figure 4. in the draft > seems > to suggest that the "Service Orchestrator" is an entity separate from > the > "Operations and Business Support Systems (OSS/BSS)". And also that > Customers (as defined) in Section 2 interface directly with that entity. > This is a very unusual construct, in the sense that: > o The common taxonomomy from e.g. TMForum would classify a service > orchestrator as a part of the OSS/BSS stack, since... > o The successful activation of a service includes many parts of the > OSS/BSS-stack including operational readiness (are there physical > ports > available), billing management (is the customer allowed to perform > e.g. > this resource expansion), and assurance (changed services require new > assurance parameters). This makes it hard to separate out a Customer > interface to service orchestration only, separate from the OSS/BSS > stack. > > This an informational draft and as such is for general information, and > not necessarily intended to represent community consensus or > recommendation, just like 8119. But I would suggest the document could be > improved by elaborating the point of the separation of the orchestrator > and the BSS/OSS and the resulting difference in module types. > > -- > Carl Moberg > camob...@cisco.com > > > On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > Hi NETMOD WG, > > > > This is a cross post for the ongoing WGLC in OPSAWG. > > > > Service Models Explained > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-expla > > ined/ > > > > Please send your comments by August 18, 2017. If you do not feel this > document should advance, please state your reasons why. > > > > Regards, > > Tianran, OPSAWG co-chair > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tianran > > Zhou > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:06 AM > > To: opsawg@ietf.org > > Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > > Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC for Service Models Explained > > > > Dear OPSAWG, > > > > This is a notice to start a three-week OPSAWG WG last call for the document: > > > > Service Models Explained > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-expla > > ined/ > > > > Please read the above draft and send any issues, comments, or corrections > to this mailing list. > > Please indicate your support or concerns by Friday August 18, 2017. > > > > Authors: > > Although this is an informational document, please indicate with an email > on the mailing list explicitly whether you are aware or you are not aware > of any IPRs related to the drafts. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Tianran, as co-chair > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > net...@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
