Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-06.txt> (A Framework for Automating Service and Network Management with YANG) to Informational RFC

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 01 October 2020 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B803A0990; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 15:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 XCFoaXWTYcGW; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 15:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x442.google.com (mail-pf1-x442.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::442]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F8073A0045; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 15:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x442.google.com with SMTP id o20so5964920pfp.11; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Yicji51RBdWNuQxKhnU7vTcivd21phWi0dxtcX58HYo=; b=eun937o7V3WQYC+2gqYBrSsHg7/cf7TyegzWuKc0ndPVr2GStigRlqGntoI/TDwqyV 1P1v54+1iQEIxe3HfEWQHmTWprPUOdCdtMM2JrRkTyWtBh3RwmQp5V1LwyzbkE0Jybc/ KDIfVDgWNJN+LsrnmNMNzBsBugXYxprp6oeOLUL+altD281hwfy+CRbSLGKc7dJyp1Lt +OO7vN4VtWVLEsBREIEkn4Nb0lkKBVXdsmhbv3fbnjAEc8PWZWOtGsqcaJXQUkSeQJsf UZKk1SWUd76HeA9OeFQTr6ucWE28CL6nKFIKwmkGY5oPyvSRtDnwArksuBCa+PQisyKi dm5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Yicji51RBdWNuQxKhnU7vTcivd21phWi0dxtcX58HYo=; b=f3QBDmxfrX6XCkjwAh6EucZCGgTwKLHOPlIBxhGeXP3udq3fFfsSwsqAoMKC631r18 9veT1CdHEEfNzZ9oTEM+CC77TdjjhQBju1nUdwximzClfV/VMCVHEy7v2eITgi5dYAXq TVT3xT29o6BcTSsrvn3hgFu36yagfnMZeFjHhQhCO6M0FOzTHmjvLnj9Y+CJ0gSnxUnj IVa/GraPHWThMSJVJH/R3TOnr6K8SQzysy+gmCIUfrJyGeivBTGQLg+Mo3GqRFiJKZrz 9n8eC5aKaS2+XapGHaoe2hevEs+91tgEHxjKoFOuXuNJI2AYLQEbNPI7Ypsfr8wudW9g fbqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Bt4hllh7B3kHaQPh9gR6BqiOh9Rw0vIc5HSxWTgI+a5IfxXsm 8R20WlssztkhD3fTmvc8YnoEaR6oPBM3TA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyifjIN6JRESZzvdcytjJDIoJdCWdp/5qSM2O8LNoKLwylodQ3jXNmxDsDQZsFSoM0a7bW07g==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:c041:: with SMTP id z1mr5234425pgi.415.1601590315396; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.138.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g129sm7912065pfb.9.2020.10.01.15.11.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework.all@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
References: <160095255684.28293.2595806209469918634@ietfa.amsl.com> <0ae283b5-1675-9995-757f-d6e6ccbd6d54@gmail.com> <13759_1601358037_5F72C8D5_13759_498_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031549FD3@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <de9bb4f6-5225-c820-8ddd-aaab73b6236d@gmail.com> <7458_1601556563_5F75D053_7458_328_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303154B96C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b46fe66d-a574-439a-653b-b39d6160b431@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:11:50 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7458_1601556563_5F75D053_7458_328_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303154B96C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/DiqplEi0VmEm-JuIbBAuqp-qtGc>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-06.txt> (A Framework for Automating Service and Network Management with YANG) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 22:11:59 -0000

Hi Med,

Thanks, that is much clearer to me.

I saw one typo in the changes:
 RESTOCNF ==> RESTCONF

Regards
   Brian

On 02-Oct-20 01:49, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> An updated version to address your comments can be seen at: 
> 
> https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework/blob/master/draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-06.txt
> 
> You can track the changes at: https://tinyurl.com/ycpt62dh 
> 
> Please let me know if we need to say more. 
> 
> Thank you. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
>> Envoyé : mardi 29 septembre 2020 21:55
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>om>; last-
>> call@ietf.org
>> Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework.all@ietf.org;
>> opsawg@ietf.org
>> Objet : Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-
>> framework-06.txt> (A Framework for Automating Service and Network
>> Management with YANG) to Informational RFC
>>
>> Hi Med, see below...
>> On 29-Sep-20 18:40, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> Please see inline.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>>>
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
>>>> Envoyé : mardi 29 septembre 2020 00:25 À : last-call@ietf.org
>> Cc :
>>>> draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework.all@ietf.org;
>>>> opsawg@ietf.org
>>>> Objet : Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-
>>>> framework-06.txt> (A Framework for Automating Service and Network
>>>> Management with YANG) to Informational RFC
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have a question for clarification, and then a comment.
>>>>
>>>> First, consider these extracts:
>>>>
>>>>> 5.1.  L2VPN/L3VPN Service Delivery
>>>>>
>>>>>    In reference to Figure 5, the following steps are performed
>> to
>>>>>    deliver the L3VPN service within the network management
>>>> automation
>>>>>    architecture defined in this document:
>>>>>
>>>>>    1.  The Customer requests to create two sites (as per service
>>>>>        creation operation in Section 4.2.1)...
>>>> ...
>>>>> 5.2.  VN Lifecycle Management
>>>>>
>>>>>    In reference to Figure 7, the following steps are performed
>> to
>>>>>    deliver the VN service within the network management
>> automation
>>>>>    architecture defined in this document:
>>>>>
>>>>>    1.  Customer requests (service exposure operation in Section
>>>> 4.1.1)
>>>>>        to create 'VN' based on Access point...
>>>> ...
>>>>>    3.  The Customer exchanges connectivity-matrix on abstract
>> node
>>>> and
>>>>>        explicit path using TE topology model with the
>>>> orchestrator...
>>>>
>>>> In those examples, how does the customer "request" or "exchange"
>>>> data? I assume this is intended to happen by software, rather
>> than by
>>>> telefax.
>>>
>>> [Med] We hope this can be by software if we want to benefit from
>> the automation in the full cycle but the approach still apply
>> independently how a service request is captured.
>>>
>>> We don't zoom that much on that interface because the document is
>> more on the provider's side.
>>>
>>>> So what protocol is involved, and which entity on the customer
>> side
>>>> is doing it?
>>>
>>> [Med] The component at the client side are generally represented
>> as service ordering (see RFC 4176). That component may interact with
>> the Order Handling at the provider side using a variety of means
>> such as https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8921.txt (Section 5)
>> or by offering a management interface to the customer, etc.
>>
>> Well, I'd rather see a standardised and generic solution to that
>> problem, as noted in my reply to Adrian. But indeed, that is the
>> requirement.
>>
>>> Please let us know if you think that we need to add some text on
>> this part.
>>
>> I think it needs just a few words in section 3 or 4, even just to
>> say that the mechanism is out of scope for this document.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 5.3.  Event-based Telemetry in the Device Self Management
>>>>>
>>>>>    In reference to Figure 8, the following steps are performed
>> to
>>>>>    monitor state changes of managed objects or resources in a
>>>> network
>>>>>    device and provide device self-management within the network
>>>>>    management automation architecture defined in this document:
>>>>>
>>>>>    1.  To control which state a network device should be in or
>> is
>>>>>        allowed to be in at any given time, a set of conditions
>> and
>>>>>        actions are defined and correlated with network events
>>>> (e.g.,
>>>>>        allow the NETCONF server to send updates...
>>>>
>>>> Second, this is the first mention of NETCONF in the document, and
>> the
>>>> only other mention is in the Security Considerations. I suggest
>> that
>>>> there should be a short description of the role of NETCONF (and
>>>> RESTCONF) earlier in the document, either in section 3 or more
>> likely
>>>> in section 4 (Functional Blocks and Interactions).
>>>
>>> [Med] Point taken. We will also clarify that in some cases the use
>> of YANG does not require NETCONF/RESTCONF.
>>
>> Thanks. (For example, draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution can serve
>> for distributing YANG.)
>>
>>     Brian
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>    Brian Carpenter
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>