Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model

[[e-mail]]

Thanks a lot Jeff,

 

Comments like this one are extremely helpful.

 

Thanks,
Daniele  

 

From: JEAN-FRANCOIS BOUQUIER, Vodafone <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:20 PM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; maqiufang (A) <maqiufang1=[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; opsawg <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Inventory-yang] [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model

 

Dear Daniele/Qiufang and all,

 

>From operator side, we definitely have use cases for an IETF data model covering HW network inventory only for the MPI interface (e.g. between P-PNC and O-PNC and MDSC). 

 

As mentioned already several times, this has been identified as a gap for a long time now in  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability-09> draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability-09 (section 4) in multi-layer scenarios and this is what triggered the work on the HW network inventory draft with the original goal to be a technology agnostic HW network inventory data model that could be then augmented to include any additional technology specific information required. 

 

The HW network inventory data model looks quite mature now and this would bring an important benefit from operators’ point of view in terms of interoperability (for MDSC & P-PNC and/or MDSC & O-PNC) instead of using proprietary APIs from the different Suppliers’ implementations as per today. 

 

So I share completely the modular approach view which could allow to address all different use cases along with the time constraints we have: HW only (taking as reference the draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang and fixing the different comments on equipment-room etc .so that everybody is fine ). In that way we could have a data model for HW only use cases in a relatively short time to be implemented in NBI of P-PNCs and O-PNCs. But also HW+SW (reusing most of the work done so far draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management for SW) would be develop further for the HW+SW use cases. 

 

Hope it helps.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jeff

 

 

 

C2 General

De: Inventory-yang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > En nombre de Daniele Ceccarelli
Enviado el: viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 10:45
Para: maqiufang (A) <maqiufang1=[e-mail] <mailto:maqiufang1=[e-mail]> >
CC: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; opsawg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Asunto: Re: [Inventory-yang] [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model

 

This is an external email. Do you know who has sent it? Can you be sure that any links and attachments contained within it are safe? If in any doubt, use the Report Message button in your Outlook client to report this mail. 

Hi working group, 

 

Thanks a lot for all the useful comments on the different drafts.

There seems to be a split of preferences between option 1 and option 3. Given that the interinm meeting is soon (next week), we suggest to use it to further discuss suggestions and concerns from the working group and defer the decision by 1 week (Sep 22nd) immediately after the interim meeting.

 

In order to have a fruitful discussion at the interim meeting please consider the following inputs:

 

*	Italo made a very good proposal on the split between HW only and HW+SW use cases. Is this something we want to pursue? Do you think it makes sense to start focusing on e.g. HW and then add SW on top of it?
*	When asking to adopt one draft or the other we were asking (as per IETF process) which you consider to be a good starting point for the working group to work on, not something that is ready for publication. This means that whatever draft we decide to adopt, we can significantly update it to properly cover all the different aspects of invently. With this regard Alex did a very good analysis in his mail. Maybe we don't need to make an hard choice between the draft but take the best of each. For example: we can take 30% of one draft and 20% of the other and build a new one as per option 3, if on the other side we decide to take 80% from one draft, then it makes more sense to start from it and build on top of that.
*	Another good point touched by Alex is the "equipment-room". We are supposed to cover also sites and location of the inventory. Are these things connected? it seems so. If the WG prefers not to address this in the core model and add it on top, that fine, otherwise we would suggest to have sites and location added (whetehr in che core model or added on top can be discussed).

Again we have a good proposal from Alex on the way forward, which is:

 

"For example, one could start with draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang, modifying it to remove the network-hardware-inventory container and splitting the remaining module in two (for equipment-room and network-elements, both of which will now be top-level containers).  Remaining modifications can be made from there.  I guess this makes me a proponent of option 3, but with the caveat that this would not need to restart from scratch - really an option 4 that says merge (for overall structure and common parts, which in this case is possible) and split the remaining difference."

We don't really care whether this is called option 1, 3 or 4 but seems to be the most meaningful one...which is: use ccamp draft as a starting point, implementing the modifications suggested by Alex and then incorporate the material from the opsawg draft.

 

Given this deferral of the polling decision, if anyone else wants to ask for a 10 mins slot at the interim, please do so now. We will put together the agenda on Monday.

 

Thanks you everyone

Daniele & Qiufang

 

 

On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 8:22 AM maqiufang (A) <maqiufang1=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

Hi Working Group,

 

It’s now time to start considering how to move forward with the inventory base model. We have two different documents that could be used as a starting point for our work or, in case the working group believes none of them is “good enough”, we can start a brand new ID.

In case the latter option is chosen, Daniele and I will write a -00 version including just the table of content and what we’d like to be covered in each section. The document will then be handed over to a pool of authors which will bring it till the WG adoption. 

 

Hence, we will have a 3 weeks polling starting today. We decided to make it a bit longer than usual because this time the working group is requested to review two drafts instead of one.

 

This mail starts a 3 weeks polling, terminating on September 15th,  where we would like the working group to express your preference among:

 

1.	Adopt  draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang-02 in IVY and evolve it to become the network inventory base model
2.	Adopt draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management-03 in IVY and evolve it to become the network inventory base model
3.	Start a brand new document from scratch as described above

 

In the week after the closure of the polling (between September 18 and 25) we will have an IVY interim meeting to discuss the issues/concerns raised during the polling ( A separate mail will be sent).

 

Thank you,

 

Qiufang and Daniele

 

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp