Re: [CCAMP] Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Mon, 25 March 2019 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
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 C8D841203EE; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FHm9y8koWtEe; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 C66E51203D0; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 3139B7C926D78B6CF59A; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:18:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:18:19 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.5]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.253]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:18:13 -0700
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org>
CC: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang
Thread-Index: AdTi8lSE8C9tuCAKSDKk0lbNS+1YsgAImz2g
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:18:12 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D105FA2@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D27E849@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D27E849@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.220.64.245]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D105FA2sjceml521mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/iUVUNBCmI3dx0Of-PbHpCB0Ik24>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:18:24 -0000

Hi Michael,



Thanks for your comment. Please see inline for my comment.



Best regards,

Young



-----Original Message-----

From: Scharf, Michael [mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de]

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 5:07 AM

To: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org

Cc: ccamp@ietf.org

Subject: Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang



Hi all,



In addition to my comment on the mic regarding references for performance metrics definition, I just read the following sentence:



YL>> Will add references for metric definition.



"The Service SDN Controller is the control/management entity owned by higher-layer service department (e.g., L2/3 VPN) whereas the Network SDN Controller is the control/management entity responsible for Layer 1 connectivity service."



I would suggest to replace "L2/3 VPN" by "L2/L3".



At least for IP VPNs, there are different ways how the IP VPN can be managed. Most importantly, an IP "SDN controller" that would interface the L1 SDN controller may not necessarily deal with IP VPNs. For instance, the IP "SDN controller" that actually is aware of the transport network could be an IP PCE. However, IP VPNs such as L3VPN or VPLS may not be managed by that PCE, but instead they may be configured by yet another software component - these software components could even come from different vendors. I believe it is not uncommon to implement the IP PCE and the IP service provisioning in different software components. IMHO it is also possible that the operational team in the network operator that manages the IP routing infrastructure (e.g. BGP routing) is different to the department that deploys customer-facing IP VPNs on top of that IP network. These IP details actually don't matter for this specific document. But IMHO the document should not make assumptions about the way the IP network is engineered and operated.



YL>> Would "L2/L3 services" work for you?



My 2 academic cents



Michael