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

["Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]> 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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openv6