Hi Med, much appreciate your kind consideration of my comments, detailed responses to all questions. Few followup notes in-line tagged GIM2>>.
Regards, Greg On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:22 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > Thank you for the comments. > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] > *Envoyé :* mardi 9 avril 2019 15:33 > *À :* [email protected]; RTGWG > *Objet :* Questions regarding the > draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization > > > > 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? > > [Med] OPSAWG is a candidate target. > > - 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? > > [Med] We do explicitly refer to: > > o Dynamic feedback mechanisms that are meant to assess how > > efficiently a given policy (or a set thereof) is enforced from a > > service fulfillment and assurance perspective. > > Models that fall under that item can be listed, if any. > > - 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? > > [Med] It is part of OAM. A better name could be used. That’ said, the > intent was to cover connectivity check matters separately from PM. > GIM2>> I'd propose to use "Fault Management OAM". Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification tools usually viewed as part of a Fault Management OAM toolset. These tools can further be characterized as proactive or on-demand (some may be used in both modes). An example of the former in IETF is, clearly, BFD, and in the latter group are all variances of echo request/reply method. > > - 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? > > [Med] That is what the lime effort was about; hence the “can”. > GIM2>> Without the evidence of its use (I recall that the LIME WG published three models) I'd use less assertive language. Perhaps "may be" or "is intended to". > > - 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); > > [Med] Obviously, that list is not exhaustive. > > Regards, > > Greg >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
