Hi Adrian, Alex,
hi all,
thanks for bringing that up. Clearly, there is some overlap not only in
name. Before starting to ask chairs and Rob (and I am sure Rob will have
an opinion here), I'd like to add something like a litmus test question
to the authors first - and then we can go from there:
While the English text puts a strong emphasis on "network" (especially
at the beginning), the yang module has a strong emphasis on the more
generic "incident" (especially at the end). Do the authors intend the
document to gravitate more towards the network-focused or
service-focused incidents?
Viele GrΓΌΓe,
Henk
On 13.02.24 10:20, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I am also as confused as Alex :-)
The OPSAWG charter says:
Β The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for
Β the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and
Β management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group
The NMOP charter is very clear that
Β Β The current topics of focus for the working group are:
* NETCONF/YANG Push integration with Apache Kafka & time series databases
* Anomaly detection and incident management
It also says:
* Standardize YANG data models to solve operational issues identified in
the scope items above. YANG data models potentially within the scope
of other WGs will only be progressed here with agreement from the
relevant ADs.
So, while I strongly support the IETF working on this draft, I am
confused about why it is being polled for adoption in OPSAWG rather than
NMOP. I appreciate that a lot of initial work has been done in OPSAWG,
but now that NMOP has been chartered we should attempt to keep the lines
clean.
Iβd ask that the chairs of both WGs and the ADs talk to each other and
give us direction on this as a matter of some urgency.
Thanks,
Adrian
PS. Unlike Alex, I donβt think the solution is to discuss the document
in two WGs: that usually leads to interesting challenges
*From:*OPSAWG <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Alex Huang Feng
*Sent:* 13 February 2024 05:25
*To:* Henk Birkholz <[email protected]>
*Cc:* OPSAWG <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] πWG Adoption Call for
draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04
Dear OPSAWG,
I support the progress of this document.
I only have a comment. Since the creation of the new NMOP WG, I wonder
if this draft should be discussed in that WG too. There is βincident
managementβ in the charter.
Some of the related work such as
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology/>Β is planned to be discussed there.
Just wondering.
Regards,
Alex
On 9 Feb 2024, at 00:44, Henk Birkholz <[email protected]>
wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04.html
ending on Thursday, February 22nd.
As a reminder, this I-D specifies a YANG Module for Incident
Management. Incidents in this context are scoped to unexpected yet
quantifiable adverse effects detected in a network service. The
majority of the document provides background and motivation for the
structure of the YANG Module that is in support of reporting,
diagnosing, and mitigating the detected adverse effects.
The chairs acknowledge some positive feedback on the list and a
positive poll result at IETF118. We would like to gather feedback
from the WG if there is interest to further contribute and review.
Please reply with your support and especially any substantive
comments you may have.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
