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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

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.

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)?

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.

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
>