Re: [CCAMP] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

We have now posted draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-09.  Please verify
that this version addresses your DISUSS.


/martin & stefan


Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: iesg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund
> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 7:48 AM
> > To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; ccamp-
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-
> > module-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Thank you for this review.  See comments inline.
> > 
> > 
> > Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-08: Discuss
> > >
> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> > > this introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Please refer to
> > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > (1) Section 3.5, Alarm Life-Cycle.  The text states that “A server
> > > SHOULD describe how long it retains cleared/closed alarms: until
> > > manually purged or if it has an automatic removal policy.” How is this
> > > retention policy described?  Is that in scope for this document?
> > 
> > You are right, this is not in scope.  We suggest we add a sentence:
> > 
> >   How this is done is outside the scope of this document.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> > > (2) Section 4.2, Alarm Inventory.  The text states that “A server MUST
> > > implement the alarm inventory in order to enable controlled alarm
> > > procedures in the client.” What is the expected server behavior if a
> > > client sends an alarm type not in the inventory (and it isn’t part of
> > > the dynamic addition process)?
> > 
> > We assume you mean what does a management application do if it receives
> > an alarm from a device that is not in the inventory?  
> 
> Yes, exactly.
> 
> > This is the reason for the
> > MUST in the text; a device MUST list all alarm types in the inventory so that a
> > management application knows about it.
> 
> What if the device is misconfigured/rogue and doesn't implement the MUST (i.e., doesn't put all of the alarm types in the inventory; returns a different alarm type than requested by the server)?  I was expecting text roughly on the order of "if the management application gets an alarm of an unknown type it MUST discard it."
> 
> > > (2) Section 10, Security Considerations.  It seems like
> > > “/alarms/alarm-list/alarm/set-operator-state” should be listed as an
> > > operation in the YANG model that presents a security issues (just like
> > “purge-alarms”).
> > > Consider if one altered the operator alert state causing the alarm
> > > management procedures to miss an alert (e.g., setting an alert to
> > > “closed” before any action is taken).
> > 
> > 
> > You are right. We suggest:
> > 
> >    /alarms/alarm-list/alarm/set-operator-state:  This action can be used
> >       by the operator to indicate the level of human intervention on an
> >       alarm.  Unauthorized use of this action could result in alarms
> >       being ignored by operators.
> 
> Works for me.  Your editorial call on how to best sequence the operators: "alarms/alarm-list/set-operator-state" vs. "{alarms, alarm-list, set-operator-state}", "alarms, alarm-list, set-operator-state".
> 
> > > (3) Section 10, Security Considerations.  I don’t know must about the
> > > implementations, but wouldn’t compressing alerts (per compress-alarms
> > > and compress-shelved-alarms operations) remove them from
> > consideration
> > > by alarm management procedures?  If so, these would be a sensitive
> > > operation that would need to be listed as the concern equivalent to
> > > the current text for purge-alarms.
> > 
> > Compressing only affects the history (old states) of the alarm.  The alarm
> > itself is not affected, so we don't think this needs additional considerations.
> 
> I missed that detail.  Agreed that no change it required.
> 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > COMMENT:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > (1) Section 1.1, Terminology, “Fault”.  Consider expanding the acronym
> > “MOS”
> > > (Mean Option Score?)
> > 
> > Done - (Mean Opinion Score).
> > 
> > > (2) Section 2, Objectives, Consider s/X.733/[X.733]/
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > > (3) Section 3.2, Alarm Type, Consider s/identity based/identity-based/
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > > (4) Section 3.2, Alarm Type, Typo, s/standard organization/standards
> > > organization/
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > > (5) Section 3.4, Identifying Alarm Instances, Consider s/were not
> > > really clear/were not clear/
> > 
> > Done.
> >
> > > (6) Section 3.5.2, Operator Alarm Life-cycle, Consider s/can also act
> > > upon/act upon/
> > 
> > We suggest "Operators can act upon..."  (removed "also").
> > 
> > > (7) Section 3.5.2, Operator Alarm Life-cycle, Consider s/A closed
> > > alarm is an alarm/For example, a closed alarm is an alarm/
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > > (8) Section 3.6, Root Cause, Impacted Resources and Related Alarms,
> > > Consider s/Different systems have various various/Different systems
> > > have varying/
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > > (9) Section 3.6, Root Cause, Impacted Resources and Related Alarms,
> > > Consider s/In some occasions/On some occasions/
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > > (10) Section 3.6, Root Cause, Impacted Resources and Related Alarms,
> > > Consider s/needs to represent an alarm that indicates a situation that
> > > needs acting upon/raises an alarm to indicate a situation requiring
> > > attention/
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > > (11) Section 4.1.1, Alarm Shelving, The text states “The
> > > instrumentation MUST move shelved alarms from the alarm list
> > > (/alarms/alarm-list) to the shelved alarm list
> > > (/alarms/shelved-alarms/).”  It wasn’t clear when these shelved alarms
> > must be moved given the text.
> > 
> > You are right.  Actually, the word "move" is a bit misleading.  We suggest:
> > 
> > OLD:
> > 
> >    Shelved alarms are shown in a dedicated shelved alarm list.  The
> >    instrumentation MUST move shelved alarms from the alarm list
> >    (/alarms/alarm-list) to the shelved alarm list (/alarms/shelved-
> >    alarms/).  Shelved alarms do not generate any notifications.  When
> >    the shelving criteria is removed or changed the alarm list MUST be
> >    updated to the correct actual state of the alarms.
> > 
> > NEW:
> > 
> >    Shelved alarms are shown in a dedicated shelved alarm list.  Matching
> >    alarms MUST appear in the /alarms/shelved-alarms/shelved-alarm list,
> >    and non-matching /alarms MUST appear in the /alarms/alarm-list/alarm
> >    list.  The server does not send any notifications for shelved alarms.
> > 
> > (and the same change in the YANG module)
> > 
> > 
> > > (12) Section 4.4, The Alarm List, The sentence, “The alarm list
> > > (/alarms/alarm-list) is a function from (resource, alarm type, alarm
> > > type
> > > qualifier) to the current composite alarm state” is missing a word/phrase.
> > > Removing the parenthetical remarks it reads a “The alarm list is a
> > > function from to the current composite alarm state” is does not parse.
> > 
> > Ok, we suggest:
> > 
> >      The alarm list (/alarms/alarm-list) is a function from the tuple
> >      (resource, alarm type, alarm type qualifier) to the current
> >      composite alarm state.
> > 
> > 
> > > (13) Consider s/Life-cycle/Lifecycle/g
> > 
> > Done.
> 
> All of these work for me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman
> 
> > Thanks again for this review!
> > 
> > /martin & stefan