IETF Logo Mail Archive

[sacm] Some comments about draft-ietf-sacm-ecp-02:

"Xialiang (Frank, Network Integration Technology Research Dept)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com> Thu, 23 August 2018 08:03 UTC

Return-Path: <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4AF130E0D; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 01:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 w6wbb7KUb7QZ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 01:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 8B6FE1292F1; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 01:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 9F5D38B023750; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:02:56 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM424-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.41) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:02:57 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM511-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.107]) by dggemm424-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 16:02:53 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank, Network Integration Technology Research Dept)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-sacm-ecp.authors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sacm-ecp.authors@ietf.org>
CC: "sacm@ietf.org" <sacm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Some comments about draft-ietf-sacm-ecp-02:
Thread-Index: AdQ6stykQ81ODcpdQGqWGrUg/llyvw==
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 08:02:53 +0000
Message-ID: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12C851426@dggemm511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.159.76]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12C851426dggemm511mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/kDAvOV6oV1vCmgaScxFzzQoGykU>
Subject: [sacm] Some comments about draft-ietf-sacm-ecp-02:
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: SACM WG mail list <sacm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sacm/>
List-Post: <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 08:03:07 -0000

Hi authors,
I have reviewed the latest draft, and think it's useful to specify the endpoint posture collection profile with a document in sacm WG.

My personal feeling is that this draft is very comprehensive and general, but does not go into depth in terms of protocol, interface, data model...
So, it's kind of design guidance, framework overview document, aiming to helping to specify more concrete ECP protocols/models. Is my understanding right?

In addition, I have some specific comments on current draft, as follow:

1.       Is it going to be a Standard Track draft? Since I see you mentioned in the abstract it mainly describes the best practices, maybe an Informational draft is more suitable?



2.       What is the relation of the ECP with the SACM architecture? ECP is one component of the large SACM architecture, or is using the SACM architecture, or part of it?



3.       In Figure 1, can the Endpoint support the pub/sub interaction with the Orchestrator?



4.       I think the term NETMOD is not suitable in this document, since NETMOD (WG) is mainly about the various models definition. NETCONF is better for expressing the whole network devices management protocol.




B.R.
Frank

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email