Re: [lmap] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-12.txt

Al,

since the edit is essentially just a name change, why do you think
this makes things unclear? We just do not constrain the URI to point
to a metrics registry. The motivation is that there are LMAP tasks
that do not do measurements and thus do not require metric
definitions.

/js

PS: I personally believe that an LMAP task registry would be a very
    good idea but I do not want to hold off the information model any
    longer.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 02:38:03AM +0000, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> In the latest Info Model...
> > -----Original Message-----
> ...
> > 
> > There's also a htmlized version available at:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-12
> > 
> [ACM] 
> The metric registry has become generic:
> 
> 3.10.  Common Objects: Registry Information
> 
>    Tasks and actions can be associated with entries in a registry.  A
>    registry object refers to an entry in a registry (identified by a
>    URI) and it may define a set of roles.
> 
> 3.10.1.  Definition of ma-registry-obj
> 
>      object {
>          uri                 ma-registry-uri;
>         [string              ma-registry-role<0..*>;]
>      } ma-registry-obj;
> 
>    The ma-registry-obj refers to an entry of a registry and it defines
>    the associated role(s).  The ma-registry-obj consists of the
>    following elements:
> 
>    ma-registry-uri:          A URI identifying an entry in a registry.
> 
>    ma-registry-role:         An optional and possibly empty unordered
>                              set of roles for the identified registry
>                              entry.
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> It's not clear to me how the generic object works with 
> respect to the performance metric registry. It was clear when the
> metric aspect was prominent (ma-metric-registry-obj).
> This may be because the idea of an LMAP task registry
> has been mentioned, but I haven't seen any details about 
> the LMAP task registry and maybe an example would help. 
> It would be good to see how the LMAP Task Registry and 
> IANA Performance metrics registry are used together.
> 
> Since I'm mostly interested in using LMAP for control 
> and reporting of registered performance metrics, the
> composition of these measurement tasks should be as
> straightforward as possible.
> 
> A follow-up question is how this will change the data model,
> which still appears to contain specific references to metrics.
> 
> regards,
> Al
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> lmap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>