[NMOP] Re: SIMAP Issue 107: REQ-USABILITY

[Olga Havel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Italo,

As you received the clarification for this requirement from both Thomas and Benoit, I closed the requirement.

Best Regards,
Olga


From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 12:00 PM
To: Italo.Busi=[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [NMOP] Re: SIMAP Issue 107: REQ-USABILITY

Dear Italo and Benoit,

I have been voicing this requirement in one of the IETF meetings since I am concerned that the complexity being introduced by the SIMAP data model due to the inclusion of traffic engineering is not needed in most of the uses cases. I am concerned that such complexity is being propagated not only to that very SIMAP data model itself but also to all use cases, systems and data processing components consuming that data model, even the simple ones. This is not desired and we might risk that due to that complexity industry adoption will be hindered.

I understood from the IETF 124 discussions that there are mitigation proposals such as profiles which could be used to minimize the amount of integration points into the data model, however I am concerned that this YANG extension is not part of RFC 7950 YANG 1.1 and even has not been defined yet in an IETF document. Adding an unknown dependency which yet has to be standardized and supported by YANG tooling is a showstopper.

Best wishes
Thomas

From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi=[e-mail]<mailto:Italo.Busi=[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 11:14 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [NMOP] Re: SIMAP Issue 107: REQ-USABILITY


Be aware: This is an external email.


Hi Benoit,

Thanks for your reply: I can understand that this requirement is coming from operators but I am not sure its implications have been discussed and fully understood

My concern is that different applications have different requirements so a given DM/API design can be simple for application A and not simple for application B

This requirement, as I can read, implies that we need to define two set of DMs/APIs, one simple for application A and another simple for application B

I have spent the last 10 years hearing operators complaints about complexity of multi-vendor integration issues and network silos and now I see operators' requirements advocating for the creation of application-specific DM/API silos

If this requirement still reflects what the operators want, despite its implications, I am fine with it

Italo

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: venerdì 30 gennaio 2026 18:57
To: Italo Busi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: SIMAP Issue 107: REQ-USABILITY

Italo,

Thanks for your feedback.
Regarding this issue https://github.com/ietf-wg-nmop/draft-ietf-nmop-digital-map-concept/issues/107
REQ-USABILITY
I do not see the need for this requirement. The terms "simple" and "easy" requires further qualification.
Moreover a network controller should support multiple applications with different requirements. What is perceived a simple from one set of application developers may be perceived as complex by another set of application developers.
Propose to remove this requirement

The following requirement comes from operators, who mentioned simplicity and ease of integration, as a general architectural requirement.

   REQ-USABILITY:  The SIMAP APIs must be simple and easy to integrate

      with the client applications, whose developers may not be

      networking experts.


I am searching through my notes, and meeting minutes but I can not find the exact point. Maybe it was side meeting. Anyway, the point was that, if it can not be easily integrated, one layer at one time, for a specific use case/user, it's not worth it.

Regards, Benoit