Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-03

Hi Brian, 

Thank you for the comments.

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Brian E
> Carpenter
> Envoyé : vendredi 5 juin 2020 01:00
> À : opsawg@ietf.org
> Cc : OpsAWG-Chairs
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-
> framework-03
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've read through the draft and it seems almost ready to progress as
> an Informational document. I just found one tricky issue in the
> Security Considerations:
> 
> >    The lowest RESTCONF layer
> >    is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
> >    [RFC8446].
> 
> Do you intend to specify TLS 1.3 as mandatory to implement?

[Med] Yeah. We are echoing the guidelines in RFC8407#section-3.7.1.

 RFC8040
> specifies TLS 1.2, and this Informational document can't change that.
> 
> Editorial:
> 
> There seem to be a lot of very long, complicated sentences that are
> difficult to understand. For example, in the Abstract:
> 
> >    Data models for service and network management provides a
> >    programmatic approach for representing services or networks and
> >    deriving (1) configuration information that will be communicated
> to
> >    network and service components that are used to build and deliver
> the
> >    service and (2) state information that will be monitored and
> tracked.
> and in the Introduction:
> 
> >    SDN techniques [RFC7149] are meant to automate the
> >    overall service delivery procedures and typically rely upon
> >    (standard) data models that are used to not only reflect service
> >    providers'savoir-faire but also to dynamically instantiate and
> >    enforce a set of (service-inferred) policies that best
> accommodate
> >    what has been (contractually) defined (and possibly negotiated)
> with
> >    the customer.
> 
> I suggest reviewing all the sentence above ~40 words to consider
> splitting them into several shorter sentences.

[Med] Sure. Will check and fix those. Thanks. 

> 
> Also, in the second example, the () () are more confusing than
> helpful. Throughout the document, I see uses of () that do not help
> the reader. For example:
> 
> > 4.1.2.  Service Creation/Modification
> >
> >    A customer is (usually) unaware of the technology...
> 
> It is just easier to read like this:
> 
>    A customer is usually unaware of the technology...
> 

[Med] Noted. Will be fixed. 

> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg