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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,
much appreciate your kind consideration of my comments, detailed responses
to all questions. Few followup notes in-line tagged GIM2>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:22 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the comments.
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Envoyé :* mardi 9 avril 2019 15:33
> *À :* [e-mail]; 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.
>
GIM2>> I'd propose to use "Fault Management OAM". Continuity Check and
Connectivity Verification tools usually viewed as part of a Fault
Management OAM toolset. These tools can further be characterized as
proactive or on-demand (some may be used in both modes). An example of the
former in IETF is, clearly, BFD, and in the latter group are all variances
of echo request/reply method.

>
>    - 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”.
>
GIM2>> Without the evidence of its use (I recall that the LIME WG published
three models) I'd use less assertive language. Perhaps "may be" or "is
intended to".

>
>    - 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
>