[netmod] ECA model draft: Interaction Between Event, Condition, Action

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 03 November 2020 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
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 1FEF63A0D38 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:39:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Z6-xZ7b-a9av for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:39:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3DE93A0D31 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:39:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 58A3A423A03D5873A6F5 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:39:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:39:44 +0000
Received: from DGGEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.39) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:39:44 +0000
Received: from DGGEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.33]) by dggeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 23:39:40 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: ECA model draft: Interaction Between Event, Condition, Action
Thread-Index: Adax898WP6SdIszhTcmKUx42F6Fr+A==
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:39:40 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADB1FC2E@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.48.26.199]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADB1FC2Edggeml511mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/jg1war_10u1yhmA5Ibr2x6UrQWI>
Subject: [netmod] ECA model draft: Interaction Between Event, Condition, Action
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 15:39:48 -0000

*        Q1: How different ECAs do not impact each other if they share PVs?

*        In the current ECA model, Event, Condition and Action are defined separately and ECAs comprise of a set of ECA entries, each ECA entry have one Event, a set of condition-action entries. Each condition-action entry have a set of conditions, one action entry; each action entry have multiple action items.

*        ECA interacts with another ECA (i.e., two ECAs have different data source) hasn't been covered yet.

*        Proposal:

Not sure this is the right question, since PV are shared by multiple ECA instances, ECA instance execution can lead to the PV state changes. If we don't want to see different ECA impact each other, we should not define shared PV or global PV for them, instead, the local PV associated with a specific ECA instance should be defined separately.