[CCAMP]A review of draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-transport-mgmt-04
"谭艳霞(联通集团本部)" <tanyx11@chinaunicom.cn> Mon, 30 September 2024 02:49 UTC
Return-Path: <tanyx11@chinaunicom.cn>
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 992A1C14F6E4; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 19:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.34
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_MSGID=0.568, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Ux_BqUTBKZKf; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 19:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sendd.mailex.chinaunicom.cn (sendb.mailex.chinaunicom.cn [123.138.59.137]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9065C151524; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 19:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from M10-XA-MLCEN01.MailSrv.cnc.intra (unknown [10.236.3.197]) by sendd.mailex.chinaunicom.cn (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4XH5B53GLBzmn8kp; Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:49:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from smtpbg.qq.com (10.237.2.98) by M10-XA-MLCEN01.MailSrv.cnc.intra (10.236.3.197) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1497.48; Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:48:58 +0800
X-QQ-mid: Ymail-xx24b003-t1727664535tz1
Received: from TABLET-6UGP1FIU (unknown [10.2.109.86]) by smtp.qq.com (ESMTP) with id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:48:55 +0800 (CST)
X-QQ-SSF: 01900000000000J0ZF10000A0000000
X-QQ-GoodBg: 0
From: "谭艳霞(联通集团本部)" <tanyx11@chinaunicom.cn>
To: ccamp <ccamp@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:48:55 +0800
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.24.96[cn]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <202409201814239174342@chinaunicom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart037166816448_=----"
X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520
Feedback-ID: Ymail-xx:chinaunicom.cn:mail-xx:mail-xx24b003-zhyw46w
Message-ID-Hash: V4GW2SLCJPS3QTO5CSAQ7PXYKNR2CCQR
X-Message-ID-Hash: V4GW2SLCJPS3QTO5CSAQ7PXYKNR2CCQR
X-MailFrom: tanyx11@chinaunicom.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ccamp.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical- transport-mgmt <draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-transport-mgmt@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [CCAMP]A review of draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-transport-mgmt-04
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/lx-eSCWfwmS-Zi5zWRvV5qNFuaA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ccamp-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ccamp-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ccamp-leave@ietf.org>
Hi authors of FGNM draft and CCAMP working group, I have read the FGNM draft recently and have got some comments on it. Please help to clarify and share your comments. 1.1 para 3 There may be a typo in this paragraph. I think it should be 'non-SDN/NFV' instead of 'non-SDN/VFN'. ---- 2 para 3 and Figure 1 For Figure 1, I think, the function of the PNC contains both management and control functions, while Domain Controller only includes control functions. The positions of PNC and Domain Controller should be swapped. At the same time, the text in paragraph 3 is also not so accurate. ---- 3.1 Figure 2 I think inventory should be in the scope of FGNM. ---- 3.2 para 4 The last paragraph about inventory draft should be moved to the FCAPS section. ---- 5.2 para 1 There is not a direct relationship between CORBA and XML. I would suggest to change 'CORBA/XML' to be 'MTOSI/XML'. ---- 5.3 Figure 3 If I am not wrong, Figure 3 was intent to illustrate the relationship between FGNM and AC models. In my understanding, the requirement for AC models is to configure end to end paths in transport network while FGNM model is to supplement the FCAPS functionalities. But this figure is not so clear to me at least, maybe we can have some updates both on this figure and related text. ---- Since China Unicom have both adopted ACTN and traditional FCAPS interfaces in our live network, I think this draft is of great help for us to solve some issues we met. And I would like to suggest the authors to clarify a bit more on: 1. What is the full meaning of ACTN FGNM? 2. What are the requirements for the FGNM and what is the relationship with the existing ACTN models? 3. How to deal with the compatibility issue, especially for those operators who have adopted ACTN models in their live network? 4. Is it possible to make a series of ACTN FGNM module document? For example, based on the existing ACTN definition, expand the object definition of management capabilities. Thanks. Yanxia Tan ________________________________ 如果您错误接收了该邮件,请通过电子邮件立即通知我们。请回复邮件到 hqs-spmc@chinaunicom.cn,即可以退订此邮件。我们将立即将您的信息从我们的发送目录中删除。 If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately by e-mail. Please reply to hqs-spmc@chinaunicom.cn ,you can unsubscribe from this mail. We will immediately remove your information from send catalogue of our.
- [CCAMP]Re: A review of draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-opti… daniel
- [CCAMP]A review of draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-… 谭艳霞(联通集团本部)
- [CCAMP]Re: A review of draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-opti… Adrian Farrel
- [CCAMP]答复: Re: A review of draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-… yuchaode
- [CCAMP]New version of draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optic… daniel