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

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

Hello all,

I think NMOP is the right place to discuss this draft now. I support its adoption there. 

Please consider the following question: As the definition in this draft, network incident is defined from the perspective of a service and is raised by an incident server. Can the incident server know the real effect on the relevant services? For example, in figure 5 in this draft, VPN A may not perceive the link down between P1 and P2 because its packets are not lost during the interruption.



Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
[e-mail]
 
发件人： Qin Wu
发送时间： 2024-02-18 10:17
收件人： Rob Wilton (rwilton); Alex Huang Feng; Henk Birkholz; [e-mail]
抄送： OPSAWG; [e-mail]
主题： Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04
Hi, NMOP Chairs:
Since this document has been discussed in OPSAWG for a long time, and because it was ready for adoption there, and considering that it is now 'suddenly' in scope for NMOP, could we please consider moving the existing adoption poll to NMOP (perhaps extending it to make up for time when NMOP was not aware of the poll).
 
-Qin (on behalf of authors)
发件人: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2024年2月13日 18:06
收件人: Alex Huang Feng <[e-mail]>; Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
抄送: OPSAWG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04
 
Hi authors, OPSAWG, WG chairs,

I appreciate that the timing isn’t ideal, but given that NMOP has just been successfully chartered, and Incident Management is one of the current topics of focus for that WG, then I think that it would be better for this document to be discussed, and potentially adopted, within that WG.  I.e., so that all the incident management related drafts and discussions are kept to one place.

I appreciate that this will potentially slow the adoption a bit, since I think that NMOP should meet first, and this draft should then be presented in NMOP, but hopefully it would only slow the adoption call by a few months.

Note – this doesn’t stop interested parties showing their interest in this work, reviewing the draft and providing comments now.  And of course, that discussion can also happen on the NMOP list.

Regards,
Rob
 
 
From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]> on behalf of Alex Huang Feng <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 13 February 2024 at 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