Dear Authors, I have some questions related to OAM aspect of service and network management automation and much appreciate your consideration:
- I couldn't find Networking Working Group to which the draft seems to be attributed. In your opinion, in which of IETF WGs you see this work to be the most relevant? - I couldn't find any reference to the process of Sevice Activation Testing (SAT) in the document. Are you planning to cover it later or see the absence of any SAT work at IETF as an obstacle to completing the closed-loop lifecycle for a service? - Figure in Section 3 "Network Service and Resource Models" refers to OAM and PM separately. Do you see PM not being part of overall OAM toolset? - in Section 3.1.2 in regard to LIME models, you've stated: "These three models can be used to provide consistent reporting, configuration and representation." Do you have evidence in support of this statement? - Figure 2 lists BFD, LSP Ping, and MPLS-TP models under OAM. In your opinion, are these three models sufficient to perform 'F' and 'P' of FCAPS network management, i.e., Fault Management and Performance Monitoring, adequately? (Should note that LSP Ping and MPLS-TP YANG models are only individual drafts); Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
