Re: [OPSAWG] [Inventory-yang] [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model

["Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi chairs/WG

As I didn’t answer the initial survey yet, I thought I was still on time. I take the opportunity to base my answer on your analysis.

My preference is for the below option4, based more on the “simplicity and focus”, with the starting approach of draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang , and as suggested, to extend and build on top of the initial HW use cases.

Regarding your second point, I would like to reiterate on the approach as part of the example shown in draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo, on the import&augmentation exercise (referred to in the appendix). We demonstrate how to extend the concept of “asset”, considering attributes that might not be initially considered in initial model, as they could be easily adopted and extended.

I vote for the so called option 4, as suggested below.

Many thanks,
Marisol Palmero


From: Inventory-yang <[e-mail]> on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 15 September 2023 at 10:45
To: maqiufang (A) <maqiufang1=[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, opsawg <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Inventory-yang] [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model
Hi working group,

Thanks a lot for all the useful comments on the different drafts.
There seems to be a split of preferences between option 1 and option 3. Given that the interinm meeting is soon (next week), we suggest to use it to further discuss suggestions and concerns from the working group and defer the decision by 1 week (Sep 22nd) immediately after the interim meeting.

In order to have a fruitful discussion at the interim meeting please consider the following inputs:


  *   Italo made a very good proposal on the split between HW only and HW+SW use cases. Is this something we want to pursue? Do you think it makes sense to start focusing on e.g. HW and then add SW on top of it?
  *   When asking to adopt one draft or the other we were asking (as per IETF process) which you consider to be a good starting point for the working group to work on, not something that is ready for publication. This means that whatever draft we decide to adopt, we can significantly update it to properly cover all the different aspects of invently. With this regard Alex did a very good analysis in his mail. Maybe we don't need to make an hard choice between the draft but take the best of each. For example: we can take 30% of one draft and 20% of the other and build a new one as per option 3, if on the other side we decide to take 80% from one draft, then it makes more sense to start from it and build on top of that.
  *   Another good point touched by Alex is the "equipment-room". We are supposed to cover also sites and location of the inventory. Are these things connected? it seems so. If the WG prefers not to address this in the core model and add it on top, that fine, otherwise we would suggest to have sites and location added (whetehr in che core model or added on top can be discussed).
Again we have a good proposal from Alex on the way forward, which is:


"For example, one could start with draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang, modifying it to remove the network-hardware-inventory container and splitting the remaining module in two (for equipment-room and network-elements, both of which will now be top-level containers).  Remaining modifications can be made from there.  I guess this makes me a proponent of option 3, but with the caveat that this would not need to restart from scratch - really an option 4 that says merge (for overall structure and common parts, which in this case is possible) and split the remaining difference."
We don't really care whether this is called option 1, 3 or 4 but seems to be the most meaningful one...which is: use ccamp draft as a starting point, implementing the modifications suggested by Alex and then incorporate the material from the opsawg draft.

Given this deferral of the polling decision, if anyone else wants to ask for a 10 mins slot at the interim, please do so now. We will put together the agenda on Monday.

Thanks you everyone
Daniele & Qiufang


On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 8:22 AM maqiufang (A) <maqiufang1=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Working Group,

It’s now time to start considering how to move forward with the inventory base model. We have two different documents that could be used as a starting point for our work or, in case the working group believes none of them is “good enough”, we can start a brand new ID.
In case the latter option is chosen, Daniele and I will write a -00 version including just the table of content and what we’d like to be covered in each section. The document will then be handed over to a pool of authors which will bring it till the WG adoption.

Hence, we will have a 3 weeks polling starting today. We decided to make it a bit longer than usual because this time the working group is requested to review two drafts instead of one.

This mail starts a 3 weeks polling, terminating on September 15th,  where we would like the working group to express your preference among:


  1.  Adopt  draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang-02 in IVY and evolve it to become the network inventory base model
  2.  Adopt draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management-03 in IVY and evolve it to become the network inventory base model
  3.  Start a brand new document from scratch as described above

In the week after the closure of the polling (between September 18 and 25) we will have an IVY interim meeting to discuss the issues/concerns raised during the polling ( A separate mail will be sent).

Thank you,

Qiufang and Daniele

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp