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

"Zhouqian (Cathy)" <cathy.zhou@huawei.com> Wed, 09 July 2014 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <cathy.zhou@huawei.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 6665B1A0323 for <openv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 02:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 1a2hWEb1i-zJ for <openv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 02:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DF1C1A01DD for <openv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 02:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BGY16036; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 09:12:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.35) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:12:15 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.49]) by SZXEMA403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:12:10 +0800
From: "Zhouqian (Cathy)" <cathy.zhou@huawei.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: AQHPmxgCK25zEFaYwku6dYZznPasrpuXcvvQ
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:12:10 +0000
Message-ID: <A6A061BEE5DDC94A9692D9D81AF776DF4085009E@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <53BC9F97.20704@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53BC9F97.20704@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.76.105]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openv6/Yis2CjOSHUA-B8T5HA935KZ-ipU
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 09:12:22 -0000

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