Re: [OPSAWG] comments resolution for draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-00

Bert Greevenbosch <Bert.Greevenbosch@huawei.com> Mon, 10 February 2014 03:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Bert.Greevenbosch@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5AD61A0793 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 19:20:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, 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 kffl9XyQo6bE for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 19:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B8E1A0795 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 19:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BAY36505; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 03:20:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 03:19:37 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.35) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 03:20:29 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.206]) by SZXEMA403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:20:23 +0800
From: Bert Greevenbosch <Bert.Greevenbosch@huawei.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] comments resolution for draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-00
Thread-Index: Ac8ihZYGxDYxy3H1TMuOOruN9Q9BBwDf4XngAAAEY0A=
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 03:20:23 +0000
Message-ID: <46A1DF3F04371240B504290A071B4DB63E3F51F4@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <46A1DF3F04371240B504290A071B4DB63E3F5121@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <46A1DF3F04371240B504290A071B4DB63E3F5121@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.162.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] comments resolution for draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-00
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 03:20:33 -0000

Hi Dan,

Thanks for addressing my comments.

I think most of your proposed resolutions are OK, so below I only give feedback on those that need more discussion from my point of view. If I don't give feedback to a proposed resolution, it means I agree with that resolution (including rejection).

Best regards,
Bert


> (BG13) Section 3.3, req 4.3.003: the description should be more verbose
> and explicit.
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: reject – what is missing?

The related requirement currently has the following wording:

"Provide configuration management with asynchronous transaction support. Configuration operations must support a transactional model, with asynchronous indications that the transaction was completed."

I guess my main issue with this is, that I don't really know what exactly is meant by an "asynchronous transaction" (as it could be quite broad). Is it just a delayed response/acknowledgement? Or is it something like a trap, which sends feedback whenever an event happens?
 
> (BG14) Section 3.3, req 4.3.003: why does the requirement not apply to
> C0 devices? They may be sleepy and thus require asynchronous
> transactions.
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: reject – we do not believe rollback can be
> implemented on C0 devices

Related to BG13. This would be more evident when "asynchronous transactions" were properly defined.

> (BG16) Section 3.4, req 4.4.004 is marked as "low priority". Isn't
> network status monitoring a major use-case?
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: reject – we are talking about the computed network
> status

The description currently is as follows:

"Provide a monitoring function to collect and expose information related to the status of a network or network segments connected to the interface of the device."

I understand that you mean that the information of the network is processed, and exposing information does not concern just the raw information? As an example: a counter that counts the incoming and outgoing UDP packets seems simple enough for C0 devices. But collecting these counters from several devices and then calculate some statistics may indeed be more complicated.

If this is what is meant, maybe the description could reflect this, e.g. by adding "analyse" as follows:

NEW:

"Provide a monitoring function to collect, analyse and expose information related to the status of a network or network segments connected to the interface of the device."