[OPS-DIR]Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-netconf-configuration-tracing-05
Samir Barguil via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 16 April 2025 12:00 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ops-dir@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from [10.244.8.129] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAFA1CEB58A; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 05:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Samir Barguil via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.38.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <174480479988.1452931.2230892519020846940@dt-datatracker-64c5c9b5f9-hz6qg>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:59:59 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: UN7367Y3PDE6XP7QJIID7NDH7ITBASMS
X-Message-ID-Hash: UN7367Y3PDE6XP7QJIID7NDH7ITBASMS
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ops-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-netconf-configuration-tracing.all@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: Samir Barguil <samier.barguil_giraldo@nokia.com>
Subject: [OPS-DIR]Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-netconf-configuration-tracing-05
List-Id: Ops Directorate <ops-dir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/5tyuXL7AudlOUvCl4vkfHCaHesU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ops-dir>
List-Help: <mailto:ops-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ops-dir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ops-dir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ops-dir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ops-dir-leave@ietf.org>
Document: draft-ietf-netconf-configuration-tracing Title: External Trace ID for Configuration Tracing Reviewer: Samir Barguil Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational Directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of IETF drafts. This document presents an update for configuration traceability using NETCONF. The draft is written in the context of autonomous networks and describes some use cases of how a YANG model can help to avoid potential conflicts in the network configuration. 1. Suggestion for a Clearer Abstract: You could add a sentence like this toward the end of the abstract: 'This mechanism is intended to be used in conjunction with an external monitoring or assurance system (such as described in RFC 9417), which is responsible for detecting anomalies, including intent violations or similar scenarios.' This clarification would: Align the abstract with the body of the document (especially where RFC 9417 is explicitly referenced). Prevent readers from misunderstanding the scope of the mechanism. Strengthen the positioning of the draft in an autonomous networking architecture (where components have distinct roles). 2. Align terminology: Figures show a 3-layer architecture including orchestrator, controller, and NEs. But, across the document, you refer to the NMS as responsible for the configuration of the NEs. Are NMS and Controller interchangeable terms? 3. Examples in the Use cases: The use cases are very descriptive, but can you include some examples of how can the YANG model be used by the anomaly detection system for conflict resolution? Nits: Across the document, two consecutive spaces were replaced with a single space (e.g., after full stops, commas, and between words). Line 10: r/its originating NMS/their originating NMS Line 16: r/facilitates the troubleshooting/facilitates troubleshooting Line 18: r/closed loop/closed-loop Line 178: r/DataStore/datastore
- [OPS-DIR]Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-netcon… Samir Barguil via Datatracker