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

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