Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 13 February 2024 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 355BAC14F5EC; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 01:21:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=olddog.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id euEleVdI8kOZ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 01:21:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 DF9AEC14F5EB; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 01:21:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (vs4.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.122]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 41D9KweF021350; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:20:58 GMT
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9E24604A; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:20:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C83346043; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:20:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs4.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:20:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([85.255.234.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 41D9KuLG001064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:20:57 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Alex Huang Feng' <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>, nmop-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, ops-ads@ietf.org
Cc: 'OPSAWG' <opsawg@ietf.org>, nmop@ietf.org
References: <fecb3c52-493c-436e-78fc-7d3cdc13e43c@ietf.contact> <8C56A5ED-909F-4DE4-BFEA-91954035D56C@insa-lyon.fr>
In-Reply-To: <8C56A5ED-909F-4DE4-BFEA-91954035D56C@insa-lyon.fr>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:20:55 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <091d01da5e5d$f35eb290$da1c17b0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_091E_01DA5E5D.F35F9CF0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIofKZQvqA8k6A+jCX7/xwIhMmZ1QGn17yFsF6AqvA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 85.255.234.249
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=olddog.co.uk; h=reply-to :from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type; s=20221128; bh=ToUHpcNmEl08uUxZUzO5p xpy8I0/LQs89EKlKywE2Cs=; b=scop5uzHKR2t6gQYk0bSwDMf4vRctWD+k2/Bn XZJwqjuxQPP4T4grQdkrpdyaMkBgP43QrIyYdtiio/xQewehBi/UO/JunmL1Noav QfWleifbg4p0DsF7mKojMmKGXYOMgtPNGd5+jONKMA09ISfbg8obu1iRXcdUzBCp 9extOIFpnHke4Z28Bagy8mlQ2HG20LWN0ernh5KA1YxUjH+jYuGAfFR/WZdUOGKX EwFUUE5Tj2zOGQBX4200DAZf0AgeNGn1XVCD53Gx3mEvdIBMIV+iygKnn8YzuTJ6 ESQOSBPLO263LCrgr3SdTbFULUkJdmtny67uPCjDJywp4E4SQ==
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-28188.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--42.089-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--42.089-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-28188.006
X-TMASE-Result: 10--42.089400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 8HTFlOrbAtGVVcWhd+PobXFPUrVDm6jtfkuZtv/FS5opTNAJDt3i5eQd JvL/K1MopfkV9KyyZqiY3m8qIVSmDgpUgpDpUbRWTPsVRSNcbWNf3ennYqHe2Fh+wccOAAwjspP Mk1ps3rzQMOAtdr7PaPNp+Ws10RLPZraGNpYcTTQ4ZNXh8UPrIMnlJe2gk8vIP0h/2tE5kUmYlw s/utSEvT43s2EPnnLuuXaXSpJKHSEqr12s6iu4vI61Z+HJnvsOdmWMDQajOiIbLQKGzhYShtLuX 2hj/M7Ui1QzF8xBpkW+dO0pHfPpjD4xnGicftABGaJMlvfxZF6GiafRvCBWaRHfiujuTbeddqWi h4h3ybzvPSt1zxntq1cHsTrnFJbcjHyM/3Tbvx4rCLswi3NpjekphWnlDPb3lA5gGtckIoCLA5h UBKtGyzOLpw0Kh5aZ5glXJzDlDkSGue+AbNmUBBefXI/UpC3i1KDIlODIu+VOvXaOUzrHdJhchs 7B6T9BihJd6Vb4pnoXlxePCzMBLEdb73gUDwkXwbRQ2Bpmlio3l2plwgrtWLmyqTXHGxLI387RO TCkGUPCfvo3UgFFJJpJ/iGeRMFQP7A6mmzUskCA3KVVsj8QDMaGUx2flwhRlsj4vrSq2jwksUic 1h3BZfay5T14qXU8oPx6XQF3O6j1mbTo9LSWABz2MDiYujy5EsGpOXjV8vtMvtSjCgVE+o7yQb3 gCryWL/f9d5JLNeFT0gFhwwXJ3VqSHRKD6rh/4k7Mg7Jxs08gUZITNQ9sASt+gViu+UDkHausZ7 ytlsu6iGZq6JqDAuiQYRQobhwSm32g72hl/zOeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1B0Hk1Q1KyLr8uVzX avvg4QViJlGwPJ1lExlQIQeRG0=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/X76jyphDoax6SGKz0gS1-oQa2lY>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:21:13 -0000

I am also as confused as Alex :-)

 

The OPSAWG charter says:

  The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for
  the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and
  management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group

 

The NMOP charter is very clear that 

  The current topics of focus for the working group are:

*	NETCONF/YANG Push integration with Apache Kafka & time series databases
*	Anomaly detection and incident management

It also says:

*	Standardize YANG data models to solve operational issues identified in
the scope items above. YANG data models potentially within the scope
of other WGs will only be progressed here with agreement from the
relevant ADs.

So, while I strongly support the IETF working on this draft, I am confused about why it is being polled for adoption in OPSAWG rather than NMOP. I appreciate that a lot of initial work has been done in OPSAWG, but now that NMOP has been chartered we should attempt to keep the lines clean.

 

I’d ask that the chairs of both WGs and the ADs talk to each other and give us direction on this as a matter of some urgency.

 

Thanks,

Adrian

 

PS. Unlike Alex, I don’t think the solution is to discuss the document in two WGs: that usually leads to interesting challenges

 

From: OPSAWG <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Alex Huang Feng
Sent: 13 February 2024 05:25
To: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>
Cc: OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04

 

Dear OPSAWG,

 

I support the progress of this document.

 

I only have a comment. Since the creation of the new NMOP WG, I wonder if this draft should be discussed in that WG too. There is “incident management” in the charter.

Some of the related work such as https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology/ is planned to be discussed there.

Just wondering.

 

Regards,

Alex





On 9 Feb 2024, at 00:44, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> wrote:

 

Dear OPSAWG members,

this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of




https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04.html


ending on Thursday, February 22nd.

As a reminder, this I-D specifies a YANG Module for Incident Management. Incidents in this context are scoped to unexpected yet quantifiable adverse effects detected in a network service. The majority of the document provides background and motivation for the structure of the YANG Module that is in support of reporting, diagnosing, and mitigating the detected adverse effects.

The chairs acknowledge some positive feedback on the list and a positive poll result at IETF118. We would like to gather feedback from the WG if there is interest to further contribute and review.

Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments you may have.


For the OPSAWG co-chairs,

Henk

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg