Re: [CCAMP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-transport-mgmt-03.txt

["Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Very good questions. The reasons why I told Dan that I have no objection is that I believe the answer to both could be “no”…well at least to the first one, the second one can be debated.

If no one outside CCAMP screams about the need to make a generic work before and then augment the technology specific part in CCAMP, I’m fine to proceed with this approach. (speaking for myself only, didn’t yet check with Fatai and Luis).

Cheers
Daniele

From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:54 PM
To: [e-mail]; Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'CCAMP' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-transport-mgmt-03.txt

Hi D and D,

To chime in on one point.


  1.  Is there a related "non technology specific" work ongoing in e.g. TEAS? I couldn't find it. I was expecting as usual to see a generic work and then the optical extensions in CCAMP, but I don't have any objection if you want to apply it to optical networks only.



DK>> Ah, a few others (Victor and Oscar) raised a similar point. We would agree that FCAPS-like capability, in the context of ACTN, would be useful for various technologies. However, our (authors) preference was to focus on optical, specifically OTN and WDM.



[AF] I think it is possible that generic FCAPS pieces can be found (as a generic base for inventory exists), but looking at this for optical I found that a large amount of information was technology-specific.

So, to some extent, it depends on which bits of the FCAPS abbreviation you are looking at.



Scrolling through the draft, you’ll see that a lot of the proposals are based on topology and inventory work with which you are very familiar. There is also a dependency on the NMOP network incident work as well as telemetry and lifecycle work in OPSAWG.



Thus, my conclusion is that all of the building blocks are already coming together in generic ways. This draft is showing how they are assembled and extended for use in optical networks.



I suppose one *could* split the document to talk about the architecture for the common pieces, and then separately talk about the optical models and extensions.



  *   Do you think that is worthwhile?
  *   Do you think that the FCAPS concept is widely applied outside optical transport networks?



Cheers,

Adrian