[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-06

Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 08 October 2020 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C32A3A0F9F; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.19.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <160219726151.7069.6476351560272708886@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 15:47:41 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/U4H92278Ihdpcmsi5IN5ZMa6LCM>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 22:47:42 -0000

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-06
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2020-10-08
IETF LC End Date: 2020-10-08
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This document describes an architectural framework for service and network
management automation, with respect of service, network and device level.

I have some concerns as detailed below that I would like to be addressed before
publication

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

a-Introduction:

"framework...that takes advantage of YANG modeling technologies" --> how does
it take advantage?

b- Section 2.2: I would add in the acronyms list: SP, ASes, SBE/DBE, E2E

c- Section 3.1:

It would be nice to add clarification: Data models can be classified .... ->
Data models in the context of ..... can be classified...

d- Figure 3: The box Device includes Device Modeling. Should be added in Device
as another box for "Resource Orchestration"? (As e.g. Service has Service
Orchestration)

e- Section 4, Figure 4:

e.1- [RFC8309] divides the Service Model into two categories: Customer Service
Model and Service Delivery Model

How these categories are descripted into the Service Lifecycle in the Figure?

e.2- in the Device Level: Should be added Accounting Management and Security
Management [RFC5706]?

e.3- In the explanation of the Functional Blocks and Interactions section, why
the following blocks are not defined/explained in the subsections?: *Service
Assurance *Specific Service Creation/Modification *Specific Service
Optimization *Specific Service Assurance

f- Section 6: I think it would be nice to explain the security considerations
based on the possible attacks/threats/privacy to Service Level, Network Level
and Device Level. In other words, explains the vulnerabilities for each part of
the entities that conform the proposed framework.

g- Does this framework applies to the management plane, right?

h- What do you think about policies, e.g.[rfc8328], should it be applied here?

Nits/editorial comments:

cutsomer-facing -> customer-facing

data module --> data model?

expand OSS/BSS -> Operations Support System (OSS) or a Business Support System
(BSS)

Thank you for this document,

Ines.