[netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 19 January 2017 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEFD012964C; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:25:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9nfj-vpZ-hDw; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:25:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E90DE129630; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0JGPHhx013266; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:25:17 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (westford-nat.juniper.net [66.129.232.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0JGPEle013161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:25:16 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: netmod@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:25:16 -0000
Message-ID: <067201d27270$a08cc790$e1a656b0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdJycEnw/7BBgfqES8aIslF6yofdUQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22834.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--2.395-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--2.395-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: dm4twJuyasFdFN0T1voiz6+dYEguu4aVnvBHr/aFnM60Vg+MnSE2GE9k rTmEDheM6NaGQbD1MQotcf0T9OPlmKucHbFRvOwLkkRQ7aojOUtBXoFkn1Z4VtlQ+Mh6O7dgnCV oYY7P13dTu7CL9BmESD3tqM9S6C/ny5j7H7ClYgdCnGIuUMP0VZlhiS3ydre3TiKNDvuWVeEzAS kv5eYpN/IdglT1fbSd/53wujJtGosdj9vNGYhpkaDH6drx3JPVZuNx7eknjx6tj24Xqh0yXKgTP HjMLlQlnROnM8/nlYXuldQ+DXnr+vGU4m5A0eV94t2mucDkRBGeimGtNywjtpsoi2XrUn/JyeMt MD9QOgDGlDvsLUDW2o6HM5rqDwqt2qZHwIa3ykzJZid1t7cvJk7AdmqkseA/Ibxljy87+6mPSB7 6+qMMPSILIX4uwY/We11BpB573ugxQ37Yfz8VfFCPaV/RzzgXJeJ1WMCERkGtftyYo2KwDjKpoR vzNKOP9DB8M7tiaMAWbf9vijls8w==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/blmxZAcAPMpjbEi4EAQrFppKvW8>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification@ietf.org
Subject: [netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:25:23 -0000

Hi,

We've been trying to ensure that draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained is
consistent with the latest version of
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification. In discussions with Tianran a
question has come up.

In section 2 you have a nice definition of Network Service YANG Modules and this
definition maps nicely to our definition of "service delivery models".
Furthermore, your figure 1 shows Network Service YANG Modules on the interface
between OSS/BSS and the various network services.

We have further defined "customer service models" at a higher layer still. That
is, on the interface to the customer. This (of course?) assumes that the OSS/BSS
is not customer code :-)

However, your discussion of Network Service YANG Modules in section 2.1 seems
slightly at odds, although this may be just ambiguity.

For example, when you say, "Network Service YANG Modules describe the
characteristics of a service, as agreed upon with consumers of that service,"
this is not the same as, "This model is used in the discussion between a
customer and a service provide to describe the characteristics of a service."
That is, the former case could be arrived at after processing based on the
latter case - processing that we have called "service orchestration" but might
(of course) be what leads to the operator poking the OSS/BSS.

This might all be fine and good, but later in the same section you say "Network
Service YANG Modules define service models to be consumed by external systems.
These modules are commonly designed, developed and deployed by network
infrastructure teams." And there you introduce two terms that are previously
undefined and only server to add ambiguity. Specifically "external to what?" I
could make and argument that the OSS is developed and deployed by network
infrastructure teams, ad also that the OSS is external to the network itself.

And, in between these two quoted pieces of text, you have...

   As an example, the Network Service YANG Module defined in
   [YANG-Data-Model-for-L3VPN-service-delivery] provides an abstract
   model for Layer 3 IP VPN service configuration.

Per my other email, this reference needs to be fixed. But I struggle to see the
L3SM module as consistent with your figure. It may or may not be consistent with
your text dependent on the interpretation.

In draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained Figure 4 we have tried to show how we
(the authors) think L3SM fits into your classification. Here we place L3SM
further up the layering stack.

[Apologies for not spotting this sooner. The citation
"YANG-Data-Model-for-L3VPN-service-delivery" includes the term "service
delivery" which I took to imply a different module.]

Thanks,
Adrian