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

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Wed, 09 July 2014 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.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 D3F4B1A0AFF for <openv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 08:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 30QA50mQmyq8 for <openv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 08:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2F9D1A0AFB for <openv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 08:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id rd18so6380503iec.31 for <openv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VDlhwvu+efn69HX27kZaibGDgTa6RDf1dqNaRTE6xSY=; b=AFk7F2uqKHF+oePLjNfkw+s3O/C6ZrUFId2IWad0aOSRRAUYk7ShvQ6hzZq9vzUlR4 UQjzpvxJiEhm+XZiyK3/8evaeLQfbELdbzvgdes0je8IpBr2y7Th/YK33WlII7LblM/B fHw1Xhi5xEFMhib0hUhKCqYCOdSpLnHTcAAJULu3JwC0G6MvxUmFDZxf4XTFjaxRX++R aYssyTa4TdzUm1o2r7oZ7+lIrqaV+LIsA8v5kpzaf8f1wUWRtF/FClp8EKmWKEzuiq2q RQUUpotIuaOfCs7gnbe/83LrpAmWKSRb0/2eqehJfNPBUthHmDtoLRVzXtElTREI4dT2 cYMA==
X-Received: by 10.42.252.201 with SMTP id mx9mr4518397icb.78.1404920317216; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (dsl-173-206-11-121.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.11.121]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b10sm16361420igf.20.2014.07.09.08.38.36 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53BD61FB.2010200@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:38:35 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Zhouqian (Cathy)" <cathy.zhou@huawei.com>, "openv6@ietf.org" <openv6@ietf.org>
References: <53BC9F97.20704@gmail.com> <A6A061BEE5DDC94A9692D9D81AF776DF4085009E@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <A6A061BEE5DDC94A9692D9D81AF776DF4085009E@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openv6/IFpQDZTOQEu3lgWiilgsThGdJPs
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 15:38:43 -0000

I did look at the architecture document while I was preparing my note, 
and verified that it dealt with more specific detail than what I 
proposed. That detail is what I was happy to see removed from the 
Problem Statement.

It seems to me that this draft should either reference 
draft-tremblay-aponf-gap-analysis or else the discussion of GIST should 
be dropped from the Problem Statement. A third possibility is to merge 
draft-tremblay-aponf-gap-analysis into this document, but that may be 
taking the Problem Statement too far into solution space.

Tom

On 09/07/2014 5:12 AM, Zhouqian (Cathy) wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> We actually have a document about the architecture, here is the link: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhou-aponf-architecture-02.txt.
> Regarding the protocol, GIST may be a candidate. But we are also considering other protocols, e.g., netconf, restconf, and etc. The gap analysis document http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tremblay-aponf-gap-analysis-00.txt
> explains why GIST fits to the requirements and will explain other protocols in later versions.
>
> Best Regards,
> Cathy
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Openv6 [mailto:openv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Taylor
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:49 AM
>> To: openv6@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Openv6] Comments on
>> draft-karagiannis-aponf-problem-statement-02
>>
>> 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
>