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

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

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) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: den 15 mars 2019 18:11
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; CCAMP
([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>
Cc: Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) <[e-mail]>
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
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp