Re: [Openv6] Comments on draft-karagiannis-aponf-problem-statement-02

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Wed, 09 July 2014 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: openv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45DE1A0B13 for <openv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 vpYZF0D7gRyq for <openv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D1C61A0B0C for <openv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2941; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1404927440; x=1406137040; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=WlUWcUEXhR/2F4Z1SZF7NuLmEsw66UTqddozit++7D8=; b=aANL7kFoTNrhLoPHN1jNY9EqKD8/hE2XE4DBpRovzCYZnW4x8gEsMC6N zgQoRhoyZX5/jrLJUMUG4GnOe1sJdOfOPHjDn4BQpwdNHhD3c7vbcOyhT EsAGUZ8AVfxLl293wwaWQECzsQHXVBkRt9BsU4WG/2yqB5QW4bUDOAywU M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FAKV8vVOtJA2F/2dsb2JhbABZgw5SWr8XCIZuUwGBEBZ1hAQBAQQBAQFrGwIBCBI0IQYLFw4CBAESiC4DEQ3BSA2HARMEjRiBRzA6hEMFiheOX4IAjXiGFINDbIFE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,632,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="59505661"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2014 17:37:20 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s69HatGd003503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:36:55 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.252]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:36:55 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>, "openv6@ietf.org" <openv6@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Openv6] Comments on draft-karagiannis-aponf-problem-statement-02
Thread-Index: AQHPmxf/li00lvBkr0y1oM3rZF4zv5uX4QeA
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:36:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CFE2CADB.2D654%eckelcu@cisco.com>
References: <53BC9F97.20704@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53BC9F97.20704@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.21.93.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <5EAD051C6FF078448FD5158FF62347A2@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openv6/8ObU4k8wnjVk0Ox2Q4SciGA7ig4
Subject: Re: [Openv6] Comments on draft-karagiannis-aponf-problem-statement-02
X-BeenThere: openv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Openv6 discussion list <openv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openv6>, <mailto:openv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/openv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:openv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openv6>, <mailto:openv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:36:57 -0000

Hi Tom,

If I understand the diagram correctly, it would be more accurate to show
AECON for a line from the "end user application" to ³individual devices²,
assuming individual devices are network elements (e.g. routers, switches,
firewalls, etc.). AECON would not be used for end user application to
network management application communication, at least not directly.

Cheers,
Charles 

On 7/8/14, 6:49 PM, "Tom Taylor" <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote:

>The APONF problem statement is definitely shaping up, although I think
>there are still some extraneous elements that were pasted in from the
>draft charter but don't really belong in the draft. I complained about
>the presence of architectural descriptions in earlier versions, but I
>suggest a summary figure showing the high-level architecture would be
>helpful in the description of the different aspects of total problem as
>they relate to different WGs. Here is the figure I have in mind, based
>on my reading of the problem statement:
>
>                     ---------------
>                     |  End user   |
>                     | application |
>                     ---------------
>                            |
>                            |
>                            |
>                  AECON-developed interface
>                    SFC-developed model
>                   ---------------------
>                   | Network management |
>                   |   application      |
>                   ----------------------
>                            |
>                            |     APONF
>                            |   transport
>                            |
>                            | (SFC-developed
>                            |  templates?)
>                            |
>                   ----------------------
>                   | Network management |
>                   |      control       |
>                   | ... and then a     |
>                   | miracle happens :) |
>                   |   APONF-developed  |
>                   |     mapping?       |
>                   ----------------------
>                            |
>                            |
>                   To individual devices
>
>My suggestion is to have this at the end of the introduction and get rid
>of Section 5, which just repeats the same information.
>
>I like the way the draft draws conclusions from the use cases and
>reflects them in the requirements. I will give that section closer
>scrutiny in a later E-mail.
>
>Given that the draft draws attention to GIST as a candidate protocol, it
>would be good to include text explaining why this protocol in particular
>seems to be a good fit to the requirements.
>
>Tom Taylor
>
>_______________________________________________
>Openv6 mailing list
>Openv6@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openv6