Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang-06

Hi Daniele, all,

I think that a discussion during the CCAMP session in Prague is probably the most efficient way going forward.

Just one remark regarding the 3 options without going into the technical details here: I had the feeling that there was consensus at the end of our discussion that
all 3 options have value and we leave it up to the operator to select which option is preferred from a network operations perspective. This may differ from operator
to operator. The 3 options and their pros and cons were discussed comprehensively. So, I am not sure whether it is wise to remove one or even two.

Thanks,
Dieter

On 19.03.2019 18:05, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
Hi Dieter,

Thanks for raising this up. We’ll discuss during the CCAMP session in Prague.
The issues you’re raising are very valid and need to be addressed, and I agree with Julien on the fact that the solution is quite straightforward.

  *   How do we ensure consistency between the two drafts? The topology draft has a wider scope but deals with the same information contained in the if-param draft.
>This is simple. My suggestion would be to focus on the interface on one draft and topology on the other.

  *   The topology draft also defines 2 additional options to address optical transponder properties - the if-param draft only supports 1 out of 3 options!
>I don’t like many options. Let’s see which ones to go for and then move them to the interface draft.

  *   If draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang is defining a device model, an SDN controller must be capable to retrieve the information defined in the topology YANG
from the device in order to construct the topology. Hence model consistency is really a must.
>totally agree.
BR

Daniele

From: Beller, Dieter (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) <dieter.beller@nokia.com><mailto:dieter.beller@nokia.com>
Sent: den 15 mars 2019 18:11
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com><mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>) <ccamp@ietf.org><mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>; Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com><mailto:zhangfatai@huawei.com>
Cc: Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) <sergio.belotti@nokia.com><mailto:sergio.belotti@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang-06

Daniele & Fatai, WG,

before replying to the WG adoption poll, I would like to raise a concern:

draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang-06 is IMHO opinion overlapping with draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01 that also defines a YANG model including
optical transponder properties (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01#section-2.5 and the related YANG model attributes).

As there is a lot of interest in draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01 on the vendor as well as operator side ( we had weekly calls in the last weeks), the authors
are of the opinion that this draft shall also become a WG draft asap. This is something that should be discussed during the CCAMP session at IETF 104  in Prague.

The concerns are:

  *   How do we ensure consistency between the two drafts? The topology draft has a wider scope but deals with the same information contained in the if-param draft.
  *   The topology draft also defines 2 additional options to address optical transponder properties - the if-param draft only supports 1 out of 3 options!
  *   If draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang is defining a device model, an SDN controller must be capable to retrieve the information defined in the topology YANG
from the device in order to construct the topology. Hence model consistency is really a must.
Guidance from the chairs is appreciated.

Thanks,
Sergio and Dieter

On 11.03.2019 17:41, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:

Working group,

We finally managed to collect all the IPR disclosures and we’re ready to start the WG adoption poll for the dwdm-if drafts (YANG and LMP).

This starts a two weeks poll on making  draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang-06 a CCAMP working group document.

Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support" and a motivation for  your reply, mandatory for the "not support" and nice to have for the "support".

The polling will end on Monday March 25th ..

Thanks,

Daniele & Fatai

_______________________________________________

CCAMP mailing list

CCAMP@ietf.org<mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

--

Dieter Beller
Open Agent & Routing Project Manager
IP/Optical Networks, Optics, Nokia

m : +49 175 7266874 | j: 8831186<ciscotel://8831186>
Dieter.Beller@nokia.com<mailto:Dieter.Beller@nokia.com>

Nokia Solutions and Networks GmbH & Co. KG
Lorenzstr. 10, 70435 Stuttgart
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRA 88537
WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE 52984304
Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin / General Partner: Nokia Solutions and Networks Management GmbH
Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Dr. Wolfgang Hackenberg, Ralf Niederberger
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats / Chairman of supervisory board: Hans-Jürgen Bill
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 163416

This e-mail and its attachments, if any, may contain confidential information.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete or destroy the e-mail and its attachments, if any, immediately.
If you have received this e-mail in error, you must not forward or make use of the e-mail and its attachments, if any.