Re: [L3sm] Followup of RFC8049bis

[David Ball <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kenichi,

On 13/07/2017 11:44, Ogaki, Kenichi wrote:
>> Anyway, does the following paragraph in section 5 cover the rational?
>>
>> The idea of the L3 IP VPN service model is to propose an abstracted
>>      interface between customers and network operators to manage
>>      configuration of components of an L3VPN service.  A typical scenario
>>      would be to use this model as an input for an orchestration layer
>>      that will be responsible for translating it to an orchestrated
>>      configuration of network elements that will be part of the service.
> To me, this paragraph does not clearly express that the information that needs to be passed from the SP to the customer is not in scope.  I would like to see that stated explicitly, if that is indeed the intent.
>
> [KO] I can't agree with that.
> Even though the current model doesn't intend something, to exclude their future possibility only brings a disadvantage rather than an advantage.
> I can't see any major advantage to state that explicitly.
I agree, we do not want to preclude future enhancements.  However, I do 
think this is critical to help an unfamiliar reader understand and use 
the model we have today.  How about text like this:

"The version of the model described in this document does not include 
information that is passed from the SP to the customer. This could be 
added in a future extension or augmentation."

Another way of looking at it: would it be correct to say that the way 
the model is intended to be used is that the SP's system is the server 
and the customer's system is the client?  In that case, any information 
intended to be passed from the SP to the customer could be modelled with 
"config false", meaning that the SP could change it but the customer 
could not.


     David

-- 
David Ball
<[e-mail]>