[OPSAWG] 答复: open issue discussion for the IFIT draft

["qinfengwei" <[e-mail]>]

Hi WG and the Chairs,

 

Thanks Haoyu to list the open issues so that we can track and not miss any
comments. I recall all these issues have been replied on the meeting.

I do not have strong opinion on 1, and 3 seems clear to me.

On 2 and 4, I agree with Haoyu, and I think this draft is just the right
position and scope as it’s constructed.

I think it’s very useful.

 

 

 

 

Thanks&BR，

Fengwei Qin

 

发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Haoyu Song
发送时间: 2019年11月21日 10:32
收件人: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: [OPSAWG] open issue discussion for the IFIT draft

 

Hi OPSAWG chairs and participants,

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework/

 

In today's meeting I saw predominant interest and support to this draft,
especially from operators. At the end of the presentation, Joe said there
are still some open issues needed to be addressed before considering
adoption. Below I list several open issues raised during the meeting and
propose possible resolution. Please read the latest v08 version and feel
free to add to the list if I missed anything or provide clarification if I
misunderstood your concerns. Hopefully all these issues are addressed
timely. Thank you very much!

 

 

1. The term of "closed-loop telemetry" is confusing. May consider to change
it.

 

A: Although in the draft we have tried to clarify the difference between
this term and the closed control loop in the context of network automation,
there might still be confusions. Maybe "interactive telemtry" or"dyanmic
telemtry" are better? We are open for suggestions. 

 

2. The scope of the draft is too large to be covered by one draft. 

 

A: There might be some misunderstandings about the purpose and scope of this
draft. We think the message of this draft is simple. First, from a high
level view, it discusses the possible applications of a class of related
dataplane telemetry techniques. Second, the scope is quite limited and the
discussion follow a simple logic: clarify and categorize the underlying
techniques, then describe the application challenges from a system
perspective, then describe a high level framework with a series possible
points which can help address these challenges, and finally provide a
summary of standard status and gaps in order to implement a standard-based
solution. We have no intent to specify any implementation and interface. 

 

We'll polish the writing to make the logic and flow clearer. If we don't
catch any specific concerns, please spell out and we'll consider how to
clarify them. 

 

3. What's the difference between this draft and NTF draft?

 

A. Good question.  We should clarify this explicitly in the draft.  IFIT is
specific to data plane while NTF is one level higher than it and covers all
the three planes.  IFIT complies with NTF and provide more specific and
detailed information. 

 

4. The draft looks like a system solution. If so, it lacks details to guide
the deployment and ensure compliance. 

 

A. It shouldn't be considered as a mandatory specification or detailed
deployment guide. It's just a high level framework with a few recommend
components, without any constraints on specific implementation and
interface, wheras we believe an actual implementation will more or less use
the components in order to address the challenges. We will further polish
the text to eliminate such confusion. 

 

Haoyu