Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-03
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 11 June 2020 15:36 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 8A3EF3A09D5; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2k0W2M386Yh1; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (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 3DDBF3A09BE; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 05BFae6F017395; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:36:40 +0100
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE1E22044; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:36:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57D7822042; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:36:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([84.93.26.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 05BFacgx012027 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:36:39 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: 'OpsAWG-Chairs' <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <403d8c5a872946bfa00e65ee5ea05ead@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <403d8c5a872946bfa00e65ee5ea05ead@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:36:36 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <05b101d64006$18c1e4f0$4a45aed0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05B2_01D6400E.7A88E500"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQL3iP391iBQPwVq6oOz635aobxm3KaQ+fzA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.93.26.18
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25476.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.246-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--9.246-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25476.000
X-TMASE-Result: 10--9.246400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: IeZYkn8zfFrxIbpQ8BhdbDjNGpWCIvfTaeMaKzvXUplYbPLopoBzQuUk rfiQnnSEhd+WPuSq/XHcKFuHMwl7D+MgxGHKrk9s9FQh3flUIh5L9x4FCuBLUYfUZQqjn6YXZA3 xNI59s67qkqELlp5OnclHKf7HefiYeW+cAT8xD1MWqJ/PBjhtWqm9/6ObPjnDCD7rjpXrwMoRRL fe6UPgvLqXDuwnNE4GICAmFnt3oi9Im8dlggjEyNoYj2vB4wq4q1xz4AyB7S1KUB9YxzCdxeuNr gjnRRtu1x/yalUNytPkRZ1USQjPrLTgkuibee/sJOMhINYq80xzBV5hAvSQ5zn6oRg4Qu89P7uo Wm7ca7kK0Pg3TNEkCS37YeucnmY/HF0BrW4o8LcZcXg/5C4VhhpMIlJT8LA4v9AzuEgxfFeaRlc 5hkHQoQHna7Q+eTXhMpRpuNTVCZDr1g5O93q/twlEpkH14hMiLozI+rhNYbm0SH+Jst8K6RnJJY TH2lb4w/onMvrdcn3WUiWyHVsqOC+tTtTc2agDuoibJpHRrFkOZNXmvnJaehlLPW+8b7SaxM9DM 4OIRzatdUb6+/yf0T/GevCxUd4jtKLr0dxeQcCKYdYQLbymTXGg2i8sqTTa4hU+7OY4zgx29y7B RsdqeblaEtmFGHFbVfnkdrWt84TnDHNpKXKTA+LdprnA5EQRNGzPoDPB/1Lg91xayX4L8+coq3S /RrkF38y6OmHWfaFTt18XjLKSkqpLXBucSFD/8KGJCiV+3/ICn5QffvZFlWAMM0WKD4asD8aE6r EyDH991umf6Vbd4AWfzP/w+nl6pYJE3o13CjyeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBvevqq8s2MNhPAL4KbF8 qbADGF5X5yuwTohDBbGvtcMofzy8ItgK6XgKv8FCUlY8Fw7zRE38YC3LgCQTQLMHkXYxWmGIEid 72xQczeQYGZWx+4a/oH3II7oVZO/xYSla3UfrIo2WH/Zm6QJK2MK45H+GA==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/reDsAInW3RtDB10M9eIOXYBO9wc>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-03
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:36:48 -0000
Hi, I've reviewed this document in working group last call and support its publication. I found the Appendix particularly helpful. I have some minor thoughts that the authors may want to consider as the document moves forward. Thanks, Adrian == idits says that draft-ietf-dots-data-channel has been published as RFC 8783 --- The Abstract is a little longer than the recommended maximum length of 20 lines. Maybe reduce the first paragraph to: Data models provide a programmatic approach to represent services and networks. They can be used to derive configuration information for network and service components, and state information that will be monitored and tracked. Data models can be used during the service and network management life cycle, such as service instantiation, provisioning, optimization, monitoring, diagnostic, and assurance. Data models are also instrumental in the automation of network management, and they can provide closed-loop control for adaptive and deterministic service creation, delivery, and maintenance. --- Section 1 s/requirements and order/requirements and orders,/ s/operating in a silo/operate in a silo/ s/providers'savoir-faire/providers' savoir-faire,/ s/first tentative/first tentative attempt/ YANG [RFC7950] module developers have taken both top-down and bottom- up approaches to develop modules [RFC8199] and to establish a mapping between a network technology and customer requirements on the top or abstracting common construct from various network technologies on the bottom. s/construct/constructs/ s/on the/at the/ (twice) --- Section 1 other Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) (e.g., MEF) It's not clear to me why you cite MEF as an example of another SDO. I don't think you mean to be judgemental (i.e., saying that you would have expected MEF to have done this) so it is probably best to leave that out --- Section 2 I don't object to your definitions of Network Model and Device Model, but I wondered why you chose not to use or reference Network Configuration Model and Device Configuration Model from RFC 8309. --- Section 3.1 Figure 1 depicts the example of a VoIP service provider that relies upon connectivity services offered by a Network Operator. But Figure 1 actually uses the terms "Provider" and "SP". It might be helpful to clarify in the text (the paragraph before the figure) whether the two "SP sites" and the "Provider" are all under the control of the "Network Operator" while the "Internet" is of broader scope. --- Section 3.3 To operate a service, Device Models derived from Service Models and/ or Network Models can be used to provision each involved network function/device with the proper configuration information, and operate the network based on service requirements as described in the Service Model(s) and local operational guidelines. It seems to me that you are describing a top-down approach to the construction of data models. But, in practice, isn't it the case that Device Models are derived from the nature of the devices being managed in a bottom-up approach. Thus there is a challenge of "meeting in the middle" as the top-down service models meet the bottom-up device models. Perhaps this issue is resolved by... To operate a service, the settings of the parameters in the Device Models are derived from Service Models and/or Network Models and are used to provision each involved network function/device... --- Section 4 s/led to the/lead to the/ --- Can I be so bold as to suggest some changes to Figure 4? Changes include: - Minor updates to spacing to make arrows clearer - Arrow end where path joins E2E Service Assurance to E2E Service Diagnostics - Remove path cross-over in paths from Specific Service Assurance - Arrow end where path joins Specific Service Assurance to Specific Service Optimization - Dotted lines to separate the different levels and moved the names of the levels inside the boundaries. +------------------+ ................. | | Service level | | V | E2E E2E E2E E2E Service --> Service ---------> Service -----> Service -----+ Exposure Creation ^ Optimization ^ Diagnosis | /Modification | | | | |Diff | V Multi-layer | | E2E | E2E Multi-domain | | Service | Service Service Mapping| +------ Assurance --+ Decommission | ^ ................ |<-----------------+ | Network level | | +-------+ V | | Specific Specific | Service --------> Service <--+ | Creation ^ Optimization | | /Modification | | | | |Diff | | | | Specific --+ | Service | | Service | Decomposing | +----- Assurance ----+ | ^ ................ | | Aggregation Device level | +------------+ V | Service Intent | Fullfillment Config -----> Config -----> Performance ---> Fault Provision Validate Monitoring Diagnostic --- Section 4.1.2 Upon receiving a service request, the service orchestrator/management system should first verify whether the service requirements in the service request can be met (i.e., whether there is sufficient resources that can be allocated with the requested guarantees). It may sound "obvious" but I think there is an authentication and authorisation step first. Is the user who they say they are? Are they allowed to request the service they are asking for? It would be worth mentioning this in Section 6 as well. --- Section 4.1.3 s/feed/fed/ --- Section 4.3 in Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) VN model [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang] I think you should use the name of the model as given in the referenced document. --- Section 5.1 You use L3NM without expansion or a reference I think it might be helpful to know where the model in [I-D.ogondio- opsawg-uni-topology] fits in the context of Figure 5. --- Figure 5 OLD | +-----V- -------+ | NEW | +-----V---------+ | OLD +-------------++---------- ++--------------------+ NEW +-------------++------------++--------------------+ OLD +--+--+ +++---+ --+---+ +--+--+ NEW +--+--+ +-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ OLD | CE1 -------| PE1 | | PE2 | ---------+ CE2 | NEW | CE1 +------+ PE1 | | PE2 +-----------+ CE2 | --- Figure 6 OLD +-------------++---------- ++--------------------+ NEW +-------------++------------++--------------------+ OLD +--+--+ +++---+ --+---+ +--+--+ NEW +--+--+ +-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ OLD | CE1 |------| PE1 | | PE2 | ---------+ CE2 | NEW | CE1 +------+ PE1 | | PE2 +-----------+ CE2 | --- Figure 7 OLD +----------------------V--------------------+----+ NEW +----------------------V--------------------+-----+ OLD | CE1 |------| PE1 | | PE2 |---------+ CE2 | NEW | CE1 +------+ PE1 | | PE2 +---------+ CE2 | --- Appendix A It is not the intent of this appendix to provide an inventory of tools and mechanisms used in specific network and service management domains; such inventory can be found in documents such as [RFC7276]. It is OK to say what this appendix is not, but it might be useful to also say what it is. Also to note that the appendix is non-normative. From: OPSAWG <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou Sent: 01 June 2020 03:25 To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: OpsAWG-Chairs <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org> Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-03 Hi WG, The authors requested the WG last call. And we think this draft is mature and stable. We start a two week last call for this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framewor k/ Please send your comments stating whether you believe the document is ready for publication. If not, please explain why not and provide comments to improve this document. Thanks, Tianran and Joe
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Qin Wu
- [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automatio… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… christian.jacquenet
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-autom… Tianran Zhou