From adrian@olddog.co.uk Tue Apr 16 06:58:31 2024 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBEC5C14F6AE for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 06:58:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=olddog.co.uk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2KlosqoMgwxa for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 038D0C14F6FD for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 06:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 43GDwJHv016982; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:58:19 +0100 Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6718346050; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:58:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468D34604A; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:58:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:58:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (82-69-109-75.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.109.75]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 43GDwHXP027292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:58:18 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Daniele Ceccarelli \(dceccare\)'" , Cc: "'CCAMP'" References: <171290744876.60694.7366484710312081276@ietfa.amsl.com> <00ad01da8cad$dc945370$95bcfa50$@olddog.co.uk> <010a01da8ce9$d296fcb0$77c4f610$@olddog.co.uk> <006401da8ff4$d170be30$74523a90$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:58:16 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <009401da9006$2221e0a0$6665a1e0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0095_01DA900E.83E89290" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQHnZu/sxTI+z6mhS2w9TRwTP7qrwwGJpYhxAdarl5QB/R3BQAK3KekcAhVFBQKw/+8dwA== Content-Language: en-gb X-Originating-IP: 82.69.109.75 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=olddog.co.uk; h=reply-to :from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type; s=20221128; bh=KXc95Tjp/oneABx2gcTA7 gdJ1vLHkmgWfQN8FkP4T4M=; b=VRL0udBmmcKH0LaMEF+YKkdTkrIfpFNAhkE9z UzA/eS5ny8atgBQGpB+qMztCNwI4enPfONmTK3xIiLcRqDLia+VIg0VNvtZuLrIV nWOtMKxyH9Xp04ydksEQaM3I1GW9kvq/B9cBxbCuxaYuryRPuFkBDh59YH/hCNWq uraMjq/eUE2zzM5r5ANGZQYFqx5an9FOt3YzC+YbfyMcRusdLry5W/8wIoLSZVCR njFjC47XJY6qV75ifeOnLZ2aYUDDCZex2TNvB5swRRb9jPkAMUJDWbefVKdL7QaJ 0GBVDXOCaS6WICHnHy/Ub6hRu/p7oeFUGe4cAG0xqs6/ic5WQ== X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-28326.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--32.314-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--32.314-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-28326.000 X-TMASE-Result: 10--32.314000-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 0lhM5bBmjEPH1DfC+QNQxHFPUrVDm6jtkYC3rjkUXRJwmq5DHMikwCqF 8dD7kGtP/ubrzF9grY3dUlunHTcW1mmhrOl03qGfdnC5uaS6tb8ZskwWqoib3E5oN2XumCC9Buh MNLfO6UCahX/t13uMFG97Lb+vCS5TAGyAb4x8FjHmOliryhGWUwGZ/+APXW9kL31P64kiV5EoDL 0anJ+JYG5/m6vlvI+lpM0DuMZdHTiZxQ0LLmG+f5Ak4Vz6rKor1qgmZGX00HW2duf1KYOL/NxRX Zg9CR2vU2M4Ma5TOe4/pnZuYLA4HKimPM07Al9SL9PWvrwT+NZNLPQl0QAltGvWLjWiUXwY4F1E q9D3T2OxCpKYiFxdqz3o1zamecPe5VtV90uxxtcTuwt1FVoaZ99WrDP4LKdpnSgPkvDdtOgSpKY PHUJnSpCJSqC8FQVQPA1qQZtQo2U5jS4V09dQzlICmG2RRehovO61PPXizymZwdqszN1DlMTr/G 24o7RrqjbqKM7gD/kF8O3PoMprwpSZP1lvQrgUQfSOYOlxKYup/958oU3WcI/g6LFchhu3SzCB6 PyBOYHYMPFYAn4//zT7eMJdGHwouFtr/YYI3zxsCltwTmzMU5kShYcLpGH95qOldExPCaP6rA5s DO02DFTXEHlJoVbT6JBhFChuHBKbfaDvaGX/MzZoNXJMbH+nyiBjGmb09NsrcFgRlaMZqTojJH9 oiMoVu7C4hieFwVKAMuqetGVettLvsKjhs0lda9+JVKonO7eLZAVphLW/basQd9qPXhnJVWgRcr SEFLc= X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [CCAMP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-transport-mgmt-03.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:58:31 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0095_01DA900E.83E89290 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, Daniele. =20 That seems reasonable. =20 I suppose, if CCAMP is considering adopting this (I hope it will), it = might be prudent to show it to TEAS and see what they say. =20 A =20 From: Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) =20 Sent: 16 April 2024 13:40 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; daniel@olddog.co.uk Cc: 'CCAMP' Subject: RE: [CCAMP] FW: New Version Notification for = draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-transport-mgmt-03.txt =20 Hi Adrian, =20 Very good questions. The reasons why I told Dan that I have no objection = is that I believe the answer to both could be = =E2=80=9Cno=E2=80=9D=E2=80=A6well at least to the first one, the second = one can be debated. =20 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=E2=80=99m fine to proceed with this approach. (speaking for myself = only, didn=E2=80=99t yet check with Fatai and Luis). =20 Cheers Daniele =20 =20 From: Adrian Farrel >=20 Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:54 PM To: daniel@olddog.co.uk ; Daniele = Ceccarelli (dceccare) > Cc: 'CCAMP' > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] FW: New Version Notification for = draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-transport-mgmt-03.txt =20 Hi D and D, =20 To chime in on one point. =20 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. =20 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. =20 =20 [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. =20 Scrolling through the draft, you=E2=80=99ll 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. =20 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. =20 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. =20 * Do you think that is worthwhile? * Do you think that the FCAPS concept is widely applied outside optical = transport networks? =20 Cheers, Adrian ------=_NextPart_000_0095_01DA900E.83E89290 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks, Daniele.

 

That seems reasonable.

 

I suppose, if CCAMP is considering adopting this (I hope = it will), it might be prudent to show it to TEAS and see what they = say.

 

A

 

From:<= /b> Daniele = Ceccarelli (dceccare) <dceccare@cisco.com>
Sent: 16 = April 2024 13:40
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; = daniel@olddog.co.uk
Cc: 'CCAMP' = <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] FW: New Version = Notification for = draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-transport-mgmt-03.txt

=

 

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 =E2=80=9Cno=E2=80=9D=E2=80=A6well 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=E2=80=99m fine to = proceed with this approach. (speaking for myself only, didn=E2=80=99t = yet check with Fatai and Luis).

 

Cheers

Daniele =

 

From:<= /b> Adrian = Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> =
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:54 PM
To: daniel@olddog.co.uk; Daniele = Ceccarelli (dceccare) <dceccare@cisco.com>
Cc: 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>
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=E2=80=99ll 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

------=_NextPart_000_0095_01DA900E.83E89290--