Thank you Joe. I agree with you that the NETMOD is the right place to introduce
the liaison, and I see that it has been added to the NETMOD agenda (thanks
chairs).
The NMOP is a relatively new working group we were not aware of before. I will
share the liaison to the NMOP email-list and collect feedback and
recommendation on scalability issues. Thanks for your suggestions.
Best regards,
Xueyan
Original
From: JoeClarke(jclarke) <[email protected]>
To: 宋雪雁00038118;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date: 2024年07月08日 19:32
Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: REQUEST FOR PRESENTATIONS: Opsawg 120 session
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Thanks for the deck, Xueyan. I’ve looked through it, and I think netmod is the
right place to present this for a couple of reasons:
You call out deficiencies in current work both presented in and ratified by the
netmod WG
You point to possible changes that would be needed in the YANG language or at
least how IETF modules are authored
There is also considerable overlap in the audiences between netmod and opsawg
that I think you wouldn’t receive any new feedback in opsawg. In terms of
large-scale users of YANG, I agree with Mahesh that NMOP is a good choice for
feedback, and they were not included in the liaison (likely because they are so
new). I think it would be good to raise this problem on that mailing list as
well to spark feedback from that group.
Joe
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 at 02:46
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG]Re: REQUEST FOR PRESENTATIONS: Opsawg 120 session
Thank you Mahesh and Joe for your suggestions.
Agree with you that the scalability YANG work is more relavant to NETMOD and
NMOP. Actually I have sent a request to NETMOD Chairs, adding them to the CC
list, for presentation of this liaison during NETMOD session. If a time slot is
allocated we can discuss at NETMOD first to hear about the feedbacks and see
whether there are potential solutions to way forward this work.
Meanwhile, it would be much appreciated if some feedbacks and suggestions can
be received from the relevant working groups OPSAWG, NMOD and NETCONF via the
email-list.
To Joe, please find the attached copy for the PPT in the liaison. (I am not
sure whether it's just your side question, I will check it, thanks for
mentioning that.)
Best regards,
Xueyan
Original
From: MaheshJethanandani <[email protected]>
To: Joe Clarke <[email protected]>;
Cc: 宋雪雁00038118;[email protected] <[email protected]>;opsawg-chairs
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;nmop-chairs
<[email protected]>;
Date: 2024年07月08日 05:02
Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: REQUEST FOR PRESENTATIONS: Opsawg 120 session
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
[Adding NMOP chairs]
Or even NMOP, if we are not sure if it is a language (YANG) issue. NMOP is
tasked to look at all operator issues, including any scale issues.
Cheers.
On Jul 7, 2024, at 5:19 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello, Xueyan. I cannot view the PPT in this liaison, but the context around
it seems like netmod might be more suited to this work and your presentation.
I see you’ve also included netmod and Netconf in the liaison audience, so
perhaps you agree that there is expertise there.
Alternatively to proposing this to netmod, I am copying the Ops area directors.
Many people that attend netmod also come to the opsawg meeting since it also
includes the Ops Area portion. Perhaps they would want to incorporate this
into their section. Still, my first instinct would be to discuss this in
netmod.
Joe
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, July 7, 2024 at 00:09
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: REQUEST FOR PRESENTATIONS: Opsawg 120 session
Dear Chairs,
I would like to request a time slot during IETF 120 meeting to present the
liaison sent from Broadband Forum on Management at Scale Projects.
Liaison name: Follow up on Management at Scale Projects
Liaison presenter: Xueyan Song and Deepak Rajaram
Xueyan will introduce the liaison text. Deepak will present the attached slides
of the liaison.
Liaison link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1935/
Slot requested: 15min
The presentation intends to introdue the issues facing the telecom industry
with regards to scale go beyond the management of ONUs extending across the
entire Access Network, and some general concepts analyzed by Broadband Forum
that are designed to alleviate them. It would be very beneficial to get IETF's
participants feedback and suggestions on what is the better next step to take
for BBF or its members towards IETF to get an IETF solution for the scalability
issue identified.
An IETF response liaison to BBF with suggested way forward would be very much
appreciated.
Best regards,
Xueyan
Mahesh Jethanandani
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
