Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions (27th-May-2020)

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Thu, 04 June 2020 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 246C23A0852 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PmPn27heHAWP for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F8E23A07EA for <OPSAWG@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml715-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8C793C84453FD5713DD4; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 08:40:33 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.66) by lhreml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 08:40:33 +0100
Received: from DGGEML424-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.41) by lhreml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 08:40:32 +0100
Received: from DGGEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.233]) by dggeml424-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 15:40:26 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, SAMIER BARGUIL GIRALDO <samier.barguilgiraldo.ext@telefonica.com>
CC: "OPSAWG@ietf.org" <OPSAWG@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions (27th-May-2020)
Thread-Index: AdY6QkxCSbLlWcZOS92w/Jle07eRBw==
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 07:40:25 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD72F9D8@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.33.123]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD72F9D8dggeml511mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/EEN18s2sGxKqzUBxbtPtSnzDNKg>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions (27th-May-2020)
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, 04 Jun 2020 07:40:37 -0000

And on that topic, your operational-type is used for both admin and oper status.  It seems to me that admin status would either be up or down (or maybe something like testing such as in the ietf-interfaces module).  The oper-status may be richer.

And in your grouping for service-status, you have a timestamp tied to admin that should indicate the _actual_ date and time of the service being up or down.  This won’t necessarily be the case for an admin status.

[Qin]: Agree with Joe, two points to add here:

1.       why tie timestamp with both admin and oper status, why not define additional leaf for timestamp within service-status container?

2.       since operational-type is used for both admin and oper status, I think operation-type could be extended to support additional function, such as testing.

In addition, I would two additional typedefs



typedef oper-status {

type operational-type;

description

"Defines a type representing the operational status of

a vpn service.";

}

typedef admin-status {

type operational-type;

description

"Defines a type representing the administrative status of

a vpn service.";
}

Joe