Re: [OPSAWG] network management data models - a rewrite

[Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[e-mail]>]

Greetings all,

	To confirm - the temperature check in the room was to include both views in the document, as one view may resonate better with different communities.  I believe that your contribution will be a valuable addition to the document, as it stands.  If you have some specific issues regarding the examples and their suitability, please work with the authors on the document, however we need to do so quickly.  The consensus in the room was to advance the document in short order.  

	If anyone else in the group has a feeling on this topic, please speak up on the list in short order.

	Thank you,
	Chris

On 16Nov2011, at 22.17, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:

> Dear Juergen,
> 
> thank you for your contribution. It is valuable and fits the discussion 
> in the OPSAWG session for the second view in the document.
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-02 has a section on "Network
>> Management Data Models" which is structured around FCAPS which I
>> happen to dislike for several reasons (data model work in the IETF is
>> not organized around FCAPS, the discussion is constantly changing
>> abstraction levels, some of the examples picked are somewhat
>> surprising). 
> 
> Please comment on the examples you find as not suitable.
> 
>> To be constructive, I have written a replacement for this
> 
> As discussed and agreed in the OPSAWG session (by the persons in the 
> session; unfortunately you were not in the meeting room at that time) 
> the best approach is to have both views in the document. 
> 
>> section that I think better summarizes what the IETF has to offer and
>> how data modeling work happens to be done in the IETF. In addition, it
>> is also shorter.
>> 
>> I do not mind if my proposed rewrite is followed by a section
>> discussing how all this fits into an FCAPS view of the world but such
>> a section should be much shorter and different from what is in the
>> current section 4. (For me, a short explanation that the IETF does not
>> organize data models around FCAPS is really sufficient but I guess
>> Mehmet and Benoit might not agree with that.)
> 
> From the very first version of the draft our aim was to provide a
> detailed 
> data model survey as a guidance for the audience outside of the IETF. 
> The survey can be for sure tuned or optimized as necessary. However,
> we should strive for a publishing soon rather than having more cycles.
> 
> Mehmet
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

--  
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf