Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-12.txt

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,



Getting there hopefully with this iteration...



Thanks for your further comment. I think I addressed all your comments for this round. Please see inline for my comment and the diff file to make it easier for you to review your comment.

https://www6.ietf.org/rfcdiff/?url2=draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-15 See also the attachment for the details.



Thanks & Have a good weekend.



Young



-----Original Message-----

From: tom petch [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 11:38 AM

To: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>

Cc: TEAS WG <[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-12.txt



Young



I am less confused:-)



The Copyright statements are incomplete; look, for example, at RFC8294 and you lack the final sentence which provides the required link back to the RFC to be, one of the missing references I referred to earlier.



YL>> Included in both YANG modules with:



This version of this YANG module is part of RFC AAAA; see

     the RFC itself for full legal notices.;



  /* Note: The RFC Editor will replace AAAA with the number

     assigned to the RFC once draft-lee-teas-pm-telemetry-

     autonomics becomes an RFC.*/



Recall that the YANG modules will be extracted and widely used with nothing else to support them, so from 'CODE BEGINS' to 'CODE ENDS' must be comprehensible standing alone.  Again, look at RFC8294 and you will see reference clauses in the description, which I think are needed in each and every YANG module and one per object is not too many.



Thus, within the IETF, IPPM have done much on one-way and two-way delay; do you mean the same as they do? If not, where do your definitions thereof come from?  ITU-T (who are also hot on this)?



YL>> Added the reference for each performance related parameters in the ietf-te-kpi-telemetry module come from.



reference

      "RFC7471<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7471>: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions.

       RFC8570<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8570>: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions.

       RFC7823<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7823>: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly

       Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric

       Extensions";





This makes me note that there are no default values nor guidance as to what to use; again, references here help, if only to the RFC to be.

Human nature suggests the people will use whatever they can see so that following s.4 we could see a lot of



Threshold-time: 3600 (sec)

Cooldown-time:  60 (sec)

threshold-value: 300 mile-seconds [milli?]

threshold-value: 300 megabytes



which may, or may not, be suitable values.



Related to this, common practice is to put examples in an Appendix, the idea being that examples are not Normative and Appendices are not Normative, whereas the body of the document is, which examples are not.

Examples in the body may be blindly followed.



YL>> I changed the numeric values to XYZ’s so that people would not get misguided with the illustration. There is not really default value for each of these parameters as they are depending on the use-cases and applications. Keeping the examples in the main body with non-numeric examples, I think, should be fine. Changed mile-seconds to milli-seconds. These parameters are quite generic that they don’t have proper references per se.



HTH



Tom Petch





----- Original Message -----

From: "Leeyoung" <[e-mail]>

To: "tom petch" <[e-mail]>; "TEAS WG Chairs"

<[e-mail]>

Cc: "TEAS WG" <[e-mail]>

Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 6:06 PM



> Hi Tom,

>

> Thanks. I think there is still some inconsistency as you pointed out.

Please see inline. This should be it. I uploaded v.14 that incorporated all your comments. Attached is the new version notification and the below is the pointer for the diff.

>

>

https://www6.ietf.org/rfcdiff/?url2=draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-aut

onomics-14

>

> Please let me know if any further fix is needed.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Young

> -----Original Message-----

>

> From: tom petch [mailto:[e-mail]]

> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 11:37 AM

>

> To: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG Chairs

<[e-mail]>

>

> Cc: TEAS WG <[e-mail]>

>

> Young (!)

>

> I remain confused.  What I see is

>

> s.1.3

>

>

>

>       | te-kpi  | ietf-te-kpi-telemetry        | [This I-D]      |

>

>       | vn-tel  | ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry        | [This I-D]      |

>

>

>

> YL>> te-kpi should be te-tel

>

>

>

> YANG Modules

>

>

>

>   namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-kpi-telemetry";

>

>   prefix te-tel;

>

>

>

>   namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry";

>

>   prefix vn-tel;

>

>

>

> YL>> This is now consistent with s.1.3

>

>

>

>

>

> IANA Considerations

>

>

>

>    URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-kpi-telemetry

>

>    URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-kpi-telemetry

>

>

>

> YL>> ietf-kpi-temetry should be ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry.

>

>

>

>    namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-kpi-telemetry

>

>    namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry

>

>

>

> Too many prefix, too many URI.

>

>

>

> And IANA Considerations - which is authoritative so I tend to look at

first - must specify prefix but it does not

>

>

>

> YL>> Added: prefix: te-tel and prefix:vn-tel

>

>    -------------------------------------------------------------------

-

>

>    name:         ietf-te-kpi-telemetry

>

>    namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-kpi-telemetry

>

>    prefix:       te-tel

>

>    reference:    RFC XXXX (TDB)

>

>    -------------------------------------------------------------------

-

>

>

>

>    -------------------------------------------------------------------

-

>

>    name:         ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry

>

>    namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry

>

>    prefix:       vn-tel

>

>    reference:    RFC XXXX (TDB)

>

>    -------------------------------------------------------------------

-

>

>

>

> Tom Petch

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

> From: "Leeyoung" <[e-mail]>

>

> To: "tom petch" <[e-mail]>; "TEAS WG Chairs"

>

> <[e-mail]>

>

> Cc: "TEAS WG" <[e-mail]>

>

> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 6:21 PM

>

>

>

> > Hi Tom,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Thanks for your interest in this draft and a good review for it. I

>

> really appreciate that. I think most of your comments are valid;

please see inline for my response.

>

> >

>

> > Please see the diff file:

>

>

https://www6.ietf.org/rfcdiff/?url2=draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-aut

>

> onomics-13  and let us know if there are still missing items.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Thanks & Best regards,

>

> >

>

> > Young

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > -----Original Message-----

>

> >

>

> > From: tom petch [mailto:[e-mail]]

>

> >

>

> > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 11:51 AM

>

> >

>

> > To: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG Chairs

>

> <[e-mail]>

>

> >

>

> > Cc: TEAS WG <[e-mail]>

>

> >

>

> > Subject: Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for

>

> draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-12.txt

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ----- Original Message -----

>

> >

>

> > From: "Leeyoung" <[e-mail]>

>

> >

>

> > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 10:56 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Hi Lou and Pavan,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Following up the discussion from IETF 104 TEAS WG meeting, please

>

> find

>

> >

>

> > the updated version of

draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-12.

>

> >

>

> > (See the attachment diff file).

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > To recap:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > - The draft is "generalized" to be applicable in generic settings.

>

> >

>

> > (See Abstract/Introduction)

>

> >

>

> > > - Changes of modules: from ietf-actn-te-kpi-telemetry model to

>

> >

>

> > ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry model.

>

> >

>

> > > - Section 4 has been added (v.11) to explain what scaling in/out

>

> >

>

> > mechanism is with illustration and a partial YANG tree.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > We believe all pending issues/comments have been incorporated in

v12

>

> >

>

> > and as such the draft is a good basis for WG adoption. Please let me

>

> know if you have any further comments.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Lee

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I am confused.  I am looking at

>

> >

>

> >   draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-12

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > In IANA Considerations you have

>

> >

>

> >     URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-kpi-telemetry

>

> >

>

> > when the namespace is

>

> >

>

> >    "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry";

>

> >

>

> > and the prefix, which must be specified, is missing

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > In the list of prefix I see

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >       | te-kpi  | ietf-te-kpi-telemetry        | [This I-D]      |

>

> >

>

> >       | vn-tel  | ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry        | [This I-D]      |

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> Thanks for the catch. I Corrected:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > OLD: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-kpi-telemetry

>

> >

>

> > NEW: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > 7.1 has

>

> >

>

> >   namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-kpi-telemetry";

>

> >

>

> > prefix te-tel;

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > 7.2 has

>

> >

>

> >   namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry";

>

> >

>

> >   prefix actn-tel;

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > [perm any of 'actn' 'vn' 'te' 'kpi' 'tel' at random!]

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> actn -> vn; ‘te’ is te-tunnel so it is clear; kpi is key

>

> performance index, so it is clear. I would change actn-tel to vn-tel

to be consistent with te-tel.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I do wonder about the choice of prefix. It seems to me that it is

>

> about KPI for VN and TE in which case, kpi-th- and kpi-vn seem

clearer.

>

> I have yet to see the minutes of the meeting so am not familiar with

the discussion

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> I think te and vn are the base model to which these kpi modules

>

> are extended; thus, I think we would stick to  ietf-te-kpi-telemetry

and ietf-vn-kpi-telemetry.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Also,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > There are a lot of lines that are too long for an RFC

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The YANG Modules lack version statement

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> Added version 1.1

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The YANG modules lack Copyright statement

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> added.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The YANG module lack reference statements

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> There is no real external reference in this module.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The import statements lack reference clause

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> Added.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > There is no reference back from the YANG module to the I-D/RFC to

tell

>

> users where it came from where to find out more.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> Since there is no real reference in the YANG module, there is

no

>

> case for this.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Several of the Informative References look Normative e.g.

>

> >

>

> > RFC6020 RFC7950 RFC8341RFC8309 RFC8233 RFC7926etc etc

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> Agreed and moved these to Normative except 8233 as it is

already

>

> in the Normative.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The Security Considerations are out of date lacking RESTCONF, TLS,

>

> HTTPS

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> Added. Please see the section.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I suggest expanding VN in the Introduction; you do it in the

Abstract

>

> and that is good but I, and some like me, skip straight to the

Introduction.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> Done.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Further on, I think that you need to expand SLA, BER - not sure

about

>

> CAPEX/OPEX

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > YL>> Will do that in the next revision.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Tom Petch

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > p.s. if in doubt, blame your fellow authors:-)

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Thanks.

>

> >

>

> > > Young (on behalf of other co-authors and contributors)

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > -----Original Message-----

>

> >

>

> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]

>

> >

>

> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 4:43 PM

>

> >

>

> > > To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; Satish

>

> >

>

> > Karunanithi <[e-mail]>; Leeyoung

>

> <[e-mail]>; Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>; Daniel

King <[e-mail]>; Ricard Vilata <[e-mail]>; Ricard Vilalta <[e-mail]>

>

> >

>

> > > Subject: New Version Notification for

>

> >

>

> > draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-12.txt

>

--- Begin Message ---

A new version of I-D, draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-15.txt
has been successfully submitted by Young Lee and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics
Revision:       15
Title:          YANG models for VN & TE Performance Monitoring Telemetry and Scaling Intent Autonomics
Document date:  2019-04-12
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          29
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-15.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-15
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-15

Abstract:
   This document provides YANG data models that describe performance
   monitoring telemetry and scaling intent mechanism for TE-tunnels and
   Virtual Networks (VN).

   The models presented in this draft allow customers to subscribe and
   monitor their key performance data of their interest on the level of
   TE-tunnel or VN. The models also provide customers with the ability
   to program autonomic scaling intent mechanism on the level of TE-
   tunnel as well as VN.






Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

--- End Message ---