[NMOP] Re: Use of terminology in draft-ietf-nmop-network-anomaly-lifecycle

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

This all looks good.

To top-post on one point of discussion....

>> I think your YANG is missing Reference clauses. E.g., in the symptom
container.
> [VR]: Can you please clarify what you mean with "missing Reference
clause"?

For example...
     import ietf-yang-types {
       prefix yang;
       reference
         "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
     }

You should, I think, insert reference clauses to point to external documents
that define terms or quantities that are useful for understanding each
element in the models.
You have some good descriptions, but references would also be helpful.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Vincenzo Riccobene <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 19 March 2025 09:45
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Use of terminology in draft-ietf-nmop-network-anomaly-lifecycle

Thanks a lot for the feedback Adrian.
Changes will be integrated in the next revision.
Meanwhile, please find some comments below.

Best,
Vincenzo


-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday 19 March 2025 03:16
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Use of terminology in draft-ietf-nmop-network-anomaly-lifecycle

Hi,

As part of resolving some issues in the Terminology draft, I am going
through the NMOP drafts looking at how they use terminology.

I am uncomfortable by the terminology definitions you have in your Section
3. 
Network Anomaly:
- You have correctly duplicated the text from the Terminology I-D. 
    - Why duplicate it and not reference it?
    - How will you handle future changes in the Terminology draft?

[VR]: Will remove the duplicate.

- The Terminology draft points on to
draft-ietf-nmop-network-anomaly-architecture  
   for further details. You don't: why?

[VR]: Will add that, for clarity. Thanks!

Network problem:  
- The Terminology I-D has "Problem" not "Network problem"
- You have correctly duplicated the text from the Terminology I-D. 
    - Why duplicate it and not reference it?
    - How will you handle future changes in the Terminology draft?

[VR]: will refer to "problem", not "network problem".

State:
- You have correctly duplicated the text from the Terminology I-D. 
    - Why duplicate it and not reference it?
   - This text is dependent on "Condition" and "Resource" which you have not
imported.
    - Version 13 of the Terminology draft will be changing Relevant State:
- This is not a term from the Terminology draft (even if it is built on
State and
   Relevance).
   Either:   
      - use those two terms, and so don't have a definition here
     - make it clear that this is your own definition, not an inheritance

[VR]: We can decide what's best between adding the definition of Relevant
State in the Terminology draft or adding the definition in the Lifecycle
draft. I am ok with both.

Symptom: 
- You have correctly duplicated the text from the Terminology I-D. 
    - Why duplicate it and not reference it?
   - This text is dependent on "Characteristic" and "Condition" which you
have no imported
    - How will you handle future changes in the Terminology draft?

[VR]: will remove the duplicate

Your Section 4 states that State, Problem, Event, Alarm, and Symptom are
imported from the Terminology draft. If so, why are State and Symptom
present in Section 3?
I note that the body of text uses lower case for these terms.
I think you need to "import" Relevance.

[VR]: Noted

I think your YANG is missing Reference clauses. E.g., in the symptom
container.

[VR]: Can you please clarify what you mean with "missing Reference clause"? 

Cheers,
Adrian