[NMOP] Re: SIMAP Issue 95: Italo Busi - REQ-VIEWPOINTS

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit,

I am fine with your clarification and in particular with the “should”

Italo

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: venerdì 30 gennaio 2026 17:29
To: Olga Havel <olga.havel=[e-mail]>; Italo Busi <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [NMOP] SIMAP Issue 95: Italo Busi - REQ-VIEWPOINTS

Dear all,

This issue is now closed.

Regards, Benoit
Hi Italo,

Some history about the requirement. The requirement REQ-VIEWPOINTS was added at a later stage based on some discussions/comments between IETF121 and IETF122, when discussing the Issue 13
https://github.com/ietf-wg-nmop/draft-ietf-nmop-digital-map-concept/issues/13. The requirement was added based on Nigel’s feedback, where he stated that the flexibility requested by operators (Oscar asked for flexibility to have L2 or L3 as separate instances or a single L2+L3 instance, but per solution) may also lead us to different viewpoints. Therefore, to close the issue 13 and the discussion around it (about the layers_, there was a meeting with co-authors, Nigel and Nacho and we concluded to add terminology for multi-layered topology and topology layer, and also add 2 new requirements REQ-VIEWPOINTS and REQ-SUBNETWORK. All is in the Issue 13 description. We presented at IETF122 and there was no objection from the audience.
[cid:image001.png@01DC943B.6AEA6600]


You understand the requirement correctly based on your comment. You are correct, this means that the controller can expose 2 different instance graphs to 2 different users (L2 and L3 as separate instances or L2+L3 as a single instance). I consider this requirement to be for a very advanced system and I share your concern about how the controller can know which view is required by the current and future applications. Nevertheless, we did not say must but should for that specific reason, so I would keep the requirement as it is. Based on the complexity and cost of implementing the solution, we may decided not to include it in the SIMAP model at the end, but that is for another draft.

Please let me know if I can close the issue.

Best Regards,
Olga