On 30-Sep-20 14:49, Qin Wu wrote: > Hi, > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx] > 发送时间: 2020年9月30日 3:55 > 收件人: mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx > 抄送: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework.all@xxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx > 主题: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-06.txt> (A Framework for Automating Service and Network Management with YANG) to Informational RFC > > Hi Med, see below... > On 29-Sep-20 18:40, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Hi Brian, >> >> Please see inline. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx] >>> Envoyé : mardi 29 septembre 2020 00:25 À : last-call@xxxxxxxx Cc : >>> draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework.all@xxxxxxxx; >>> opsawg@xxxxxxxx >>> Objet : Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation- >>> framework-06.txt> (A Framework for Automating Service and Network >>> Management with YANG) to Informational RFC >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a question for clarification, and then a comment. >>> >>> First, consider these extracts: >>> >>>> 5.1. L2VPN/L3VPN Service Delivery >>>> >>>> In reference to Figure 5, the following steps are performed to >>>> deliver the L3VPN service within the network management >>> automation >>>> architecture defined in this document: >>>> >>>> 1. The Customer requests to create two sites (as per service >>>> creation operation in Section 4.2.1)... >>> ... >>>> 5.2. VN Lifecycle Management >>>> >>>> In reference to Figure 7, the following steps are performed to >>>> deliver the VN service within the network management automation >>>> architecture defined in this document: >>>> >>>> 1. Customer requests (service exposure operation in Section >>> 4.1.1) >>>> to create 'VN' based on Access point... >>> ... >>>> 3. The Customer exchanges connectivity-matrix on abstract node >>> and >>>> explicit path using TE topology model with the >>> orchestrator... >>> >>> In those examples, how does the customer "request" or "exchange" >>> data? I assume this is intended to happen by software, rather than by >>> telefax. >> >> [Med] We hope this can be by software if we want to benefit from the automation in the full cycle but the approach still apply independently how a service request is captured. >> >> We don't zoom that much on that interface because the document is more on the provider's side. >> >>> So what protocol is involved, and which entity on the customer side >>> is doing it? >> >> [Med] The component at the client side are generally represented as service ordering (see RFC 4176). That component may interact with the Order Handling at the provider side using a variety of means such as https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8921.txt (Section 5) or by offering a management interface to the customer, etc. > > Well, I'd rather see a standardised and generic solution to that problem, as noted in my reply to Adrian. But indeed, that is the requirement. > >> Please let us know if you think that we need to add some text on this part. > > I think it needs just a few words in section 3 or 4, even just to say that the mechanism is out of scope for this document. > >> >>> >>>> 5.3. Event-based Telemetry in the Device Self Management >>>> >>>> In reference to Figure 8, the following steps are performed to >>>> monitor state changes of managed objects or resources in a >>> network >>>> device and provide device self-management within the network >>>> management automation architecture defined in this document: >>>> >>>> 1. To control which state a network device should be in or is >>>> allowed to be in at any given time, a set of conditions and >>>> actions are defined and correlated with network events >>> (e.g., >>>> allow the NETCONF server to send updates... >>> >>> Second, this is the first mention of NETCONF in the document, and the >>> only other mention is in the Security Considerations. I suggest that >>> there should be a short description of the role of NETCONF (and >>> RESTCONF) earlier in the document, either in section 3 or more likely >>> in section 4 (Functional Blocks and Interactions). >> >> [Med] Point taken. We will also clarify that in some cases the use of YANG does not require NETCONF/RESTCONF. > > Thanks. (For example, draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution can serve for distributing YANG.) > > [Qin]: Thanks Brian for heads up. I think what Med mean is YANG doesn't need to tie with NETCONF, or RESTCONF, it could be also work with gRPC. > YANG is transport independent data modeling language. > One motivation to write this draft is to focus on management plane approach and build fully automated YANG based system. I am not sure grasp can be used to distribute YANG. > My impression of information distribution is used to distribute information between autonomic nodes in the data plane, that is not in the scope of this document, > If my understanding is correct. Yes, that's correct. For example, network intent defined in YANG could be distributed. > But I agree with you we could investigate how YANG, ANINMA, NETCONF work together. That's a very interesting topic. Sure. We should come back to it as soon as the initial ANIMA document set is complete, which (fingers crossed) will not be too long now. Brian > > Brian >> >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian Carpenter >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> ___________________________________________________ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, >> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message >> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or >> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >> > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
