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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex, Adrian,

Let's check with Rob (I am on it)

Regards, Benoit

On 2/13/2024 10:20 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> 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 <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Alex Huang Feng
> *Sent:* 13 February 2024 05:25
> *To:* Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* OPSAWG <[e-mail]>
> *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
>     <[e-mail]> 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
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>