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

Hi Tom,

Thank you very much for your comments!

Regarding GIST, please note that NSIS is mentioned as candidate, based on the comments of IESG and IAB on APONF improvements. These comments were provided after rejecting the first APONF BOF request.

We will take your comments in considerations and the discussions that we will have in Toronto when updating the 02 version of the problem statement draft.

Best regards,
Georgios

________________________________________
Van: Openv6 [openv6-bounces@ietf.org] namens Tom Taylor [tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com]
Verzonden: woensdag 9 juli 2014 17:38
Aan: Zhouqian (Cathy); openv6@ietf.org
Onderwerp: Re: [Openv6] Comments on     draft-karagiannis-aponf-problem-statement-02

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
>

_______________________________________________
Openv6 mailing list
Openv6@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openv6