Re: [Nmop] [OPSAWG] ๐Ÿ”” WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04

Fernando Camacho <fernando.camacho1@huawei.com> Wed, 13 March 2024 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando.camacho1@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: nmop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nmop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41188C151065; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qWo3FDso6JeQ; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BCE2C14F6EE; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TvvVG1LWQz6K8sb; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:25:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.22]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BE8A140D1D; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:30:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.205) by frapeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:30:05 +0100
Received: from frapeml500002.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.205]) by frapeml500002.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.205]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:30:04 +0100
From: Fernando Camacho <fernando.camacho1@huawei.com>
To: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "nmop@ietf.org" <nmop@ietf.org>
CC: Dave Milham <dmilham@tmforum.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] ๐Ÿ”” WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04
Thread-Index: Adpt3CYVfRf26EprRByrtS4eIhPhPQHeV38w
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:30:04 +0000
Message-ID: <b00a1f0c515248638f26928e320d4cb3@huawei.com>
References: <b1ac2d8b915e4522877274a94ba8432c@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <b1ac2d8b915e4522877274a94ba8432c@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.48.210.54]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_b00a1f0c515248638f26928e320d4cb3huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/rolGRxyGHH-nQTWUE8AG_LH6130>
Subject: Re: [Nmop] [OPSAWG] ๐Ÿ”” WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04
X-BeenThere: nmop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Network Management Operations \(NMOP\) Working Group" <nmop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nmop>, <mailto:nmop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nmop/>
List-Post: <mailto:nmop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nmop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmop>, <mailto:nmop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:30:11 -0000

Dear OPSAWG Chairs, NMOP Chairs, all,

As the co-author of the TMF 724 Incident Management API profile, I am very happy to see this standardization process in IETF.



I have reviewed the latest version of the draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04 and I can confirm that:

  *   the terminology used for the definition of Network Incident is aligned with the terminology used in the TMF724 API profile.
  *   the Yang data model included in this IETF draft is technically aligned with the information model of the incident described in the TMF724 API profile.



Please note that if a formal letter from TMF acknowledging this alignment is required we would need to follow the liaison process.  In any case, it would be of great interest to formally collaborate further in this area (again via a liaison statement) as IETF yang models are very complementary to our TMF724 Incident API.



I have also been asked whether IETF can get access to this TMF specification.  My understanding is that currently TMF published specifications are only available to TMF members.  However, if IETF wants to reference this work, I am happy to discuss it with the TMF responsible person to see how to make it publicly available.



Regards,

Fernando Camacho



-----้‚ฎไปถๅŽŸไปถ-----

ๅ‘ไปถไบบ: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] ไปฃ่กจ Henk Birkholz

ๅ‘้€ๆ—ถ้—ด: 2024ๅนด2ๆœˆ29ๆ—ฅ 14:45

ๆ”ถไปถไบบ: opsawg@ietf.org; nmop-chairs@ietf.org

ไธป้ข˜: Re: [OPSAWG] ๐Ÿ”” WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04



Dear OPSAWG members,



this email concludes the call for Working Group Adoption on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04.



We received a significant amount of positive replies, a few elaborate comments, and most importantly the notion that this work should be considered for adoption in the NMOP WG.



There were also a few concerns about access to some work by other bodies that must be accounted in this I-D. Strong collaboration with other bodies must happen to ensure terminology consistency (avoiding the definition of subtly different or conflicting semantics).



The OPSAWG chairs believe this I-D is ready for adoption. If the NMOP chairs agree they can inherit the result of the WG adoption call or issues a complementary one on the NMOP list, referring to the results of this WG adoption call.





For the OPSAWG co-chairs,



Henk



On 08.02.24 16:44, Henk Birkholz wrote:

> Dear OPSAWG members,

>

> this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of

>

>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management

>> -04.html

>

> ending on Thursday, February 22nd.

>

> As a reminder, this I-D specifies a YANG Module for Incident Management.

> Incidents in this context are scoped to unexpected yet quantifiable

> adverse effects detected in a network service. The majority of the

> document provides background and motivation for the structure of the

> YANG Module that is in support of reporting, diagnosing, and

> mitigating the detected adverse effects.

>

> The chairs acknowledge some positive feedback on the list and a

> positive poll result at IETF118. We would like to gather feedback from

> the WG if there is interest to further contribute and review.

>

> Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments

> you may have.

>

>

> For the OPSAWG co-chairs,

>

> Henk

>

> _______________________________________________

> OPSAWG mailing list

> OPSAWG@ietf.org

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg



_______________________________________________

OPSAWG mailing list

OPSAWG@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg