RE: Questions regarding the draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 17 June 2019 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA911200D7 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 04:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 Yr360_cdDTOc for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 04:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta240.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C47E5120088 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 04:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.8]) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45S82q0hJTz5yQP; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:22:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.26]) by opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45S82p6p1wz3wbY; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:22:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM31.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::34b6:11d0:147f:6560%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:22:58 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization@ietf.org" <draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Questions regarding the draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization
Thread-Topic: Questions regarding the draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization
Thread-Index: AQHU7tjLqh7EV8kSYkmYVgZEnHqEZaagHEdw
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:22:57 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EAA7D54@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CA+RyBmXi2RNY=yd1A5J6_XuR-DBXYagOvPPV4=PkEnJsAXXcig@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXi2RNY=yd1A5J6_XuR-DBXYagOvPPV4=PkEnJsAXXcig@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EAA7D54OPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/OHP7HftOq-d0TPI3Y4KvmcZlVaU>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:23:03 -0000

Hi Greg,

Thank you for the comments.

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
Envoyé : mardi 9 avril 2019 15:33
À : draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization@ietf.org; RTGWG
Objet : Questions regarding the draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization

Dear Authors,
I have some questions related to OAM aspect of service and network management automation and much appreciate your consideration:

  *   I couldn't find Networking Working Group to which the draft seems to be attributed. In your opinion, in which of IETF WGs you see this work to be the most relevant?
[Med] OPSAWG is a candidate target.

  *   I couldn't find any reference to the process of Sevice Activation Testing (SAT) in the document. Are you planning to cover it later or see the absence of any SAT work at IETF as an obstacle to completing the closed-loop lifecycle for a service?
[Med] We do explicitly refer to:
   o  Dynamic feedback mechanisms that are meant to assess how
      efficiently a given policy (or a set thereof) is enforced from a
      service fulfillment and assurance perspective.
Models that fall under that item can be listed, if any.

  *   Figure in Section 3 "Network Service and Resource Models" refers to OAM and PM separately. Do you see PM not being part of overall OAM toolset?
[Med] It is part of OAM. A better name could be used. That’ said, the intent was to cover connectivity check matters separately from PM.

  *   in Section 3.1.2 in regard to LIME models, you've stated: "These three models can be used to provide consistent reporting, configuration and representation." Do you have evidence in support of this statement?
[Med] That is what the lime effort was about; hence the “can”.

  *   Figure 2 lists BFD, LSP Ping, and MPLS-TP models under OAM. In your opinion, are these three models sufficient to perform 'F' and 'P' of FCAPS network management, i.e., Fault Management and Performance Monitoring, adequately? (Should note that LSP Ping and MPLS-TP YANG models are only individual drafts);
[Med] Obviously, that list is not exhaustive.
Regards,
Greg