Re: [netmod] Cross-post to Netmod for LC comments//FW: WG LC for Service Models Explained

Hi Carl,

Thank you for the comments. It's a valuable feedback from the author of the associated RFC. 
Although informational, as a working group action, I hope the document can represent the community consensus.

Cheers,
Tianran

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Moberg (camoberg) [mailto:camoberg@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 6:31 PM
> To: Tianran Zhou
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Cross-post to Netmod for LC comments//FW: WG LC for
> Service Models Explained
> 
> Tianran, OPSAWG,
> 
>  Now that RFC8199 is published, I have two (somewhat associated) points
> of  high-level feedback on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained:
> 
>   - The term “Network Service Model” in RFC 8199 is intended to cover both
>     "Customer Service Model” as well as “Service Delivery Model” as defined
>     in draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained. At the time of the first
>     revision of what was
> draft-bogdanovic-netmod-yang-model-classification
>     we discussed further splitting "Network Service Model” into smaller
>     components, but decided against it since we did not see a consensus on
>     what that split would look like. I believe the authors here is
>     suggesting such a further split.
> 
>     There is one specific passage in this draft that I would suggest could
>     use rephrasing if the authors agree to the above:
> 
> """
>    As previously noted, [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification]
>    provides a classification of YANG data models.  It introduces the
>    term "Network Service YANG Module" to identify the type of model used
>    to "describe the configuration, state data, operations and
>    notifications of abstract representations of services implemented on
>    one or multiple network elements."  These are service delivery models
>    as described in this document, that is, they are the models used on
>    the interface between the Service Orchestrator or OSS/BSS and the
>    Network Orchestrator as shown in Figure 3.
> """
> 
>  - And this gets to my second point of feedback. Figure 4. in the draft
> seems
>    to suggest that the "Service Orchestrator" is an entity separate from
> the
>    "Operations and Business Support Systems (OSS/BSS)". And also that
>    Customers (as defined) in Section 2 interface directly with that entity.
>    This is a very unusual construct, in the sense that:
>     o The common taxonomomy from e.g. TMForum would classify a service
>       orchestrator as a part of the OSS/BSS stack, since...
>     o The successful activation of a service includes many parts of the
>       OSS/BSS-stack including operational readiness (are there physical
> ports
>       available), billing management (is the customer allowed to perform
> e.g.
>       this resource expansion), and assurance (changed services require new
>       assurance parameters). This makes it hard to separate out a Customer
>       interface to service orchestration only, separate from the OSS/BSS
>       stack.
> 
>  This an informational draft and as such is for general information, and
> not  necessarily intended to represent community consensus or
> recommendation, just  like 8119. But I would suggest the document could be
> improved by elaborating  the point of the separation of the orchestrator
> and the BSS/OSS and the  resulting difference in module types.
> 
> --
> Carl Moberg
> camoberg@cisco.com
> 
> > On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi NETMOD WG,
> >
> > This is a cross post for the ongoing WGLC in OPSAWG.
> >
> > Service Models Explained
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-expla
> > ined/
> >
> > Please send your comments by August 18, 2017. If you do not feel this
> document should advance, please state your reasons why.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tianran, OPSAWG co-chair
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tianran
> > Zhou
> > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:06 AM
> > To: opsawg@ietf.org
> > Cc: opsawg-chairs@ietf.org
> > Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC for Service Models Explained
> >
> > Dear OPSAWG,
> >
> > This is a notice to start a three-week OPSAWG WG last call for the document:
> >
> > Service Models Explained
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-expla
> > ined/
> >
> > Please read the above draft and send any issues, comments, or corrections
> to this mailing list.
> > Please indicate your support or concerns by Friday August 18, 2017.
> >
> > Authors:
> > Although this is an informational document, please indicate with an email
> on the mailing list explicitly whether you are aware or you are not aware
> of any IPRs related to the drafts.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tianran, as co-chair
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > OPSAWG@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod