Hi, authors, WG, I have reviewed draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-tests, and I have a few comments/suggestions for your consideration.
As the co-author of I-D.ietf-netmod-schedule-yang, happy to see the reuse of the schedule groupings in this draft. While in the current structure, each yang module includes both the period-of-time and recurrence related groupings, I am uncertain if this is intentional, as these two groupings represent two different types of schedules: period-of-time defines a single time schedule (i.e., one-time execution), and recurrence defines a repeating pattern (e.g., daily, hourly) for recurring executions. If both schedule types are intended to be supported, would it be clearer to structure them using a choice-case statement? Some additional comments/thoughts: * The draft defines state machines for unitary-test-status and test-sequence-status(Figures 2 and 4), but it does not explicitly clarify the triggers for state transitions. For example, how to transit from planned to configured? It is also unclear to me what is the relationships between stop and finished. * While the draft mentions that output results of OAM tests depend on the underlying OAM models, it may be helpful to emphasize the need for collecting and correlating results from multiple test nodes to form a unified diagnostic report, to implement the use cases discussed in Section 2. * Operational Considerations section does not mention the performance impact of scheduling a collection of OAM tests, but maybe this needs to be considered as well. Thanks for your time and efforts on this work. Best Regards, Qiufang
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
