o Something that I find missing in the document is that the network controller could be a valuable source of network telemetry as well. Consider a PCE, the controller could be a source of network-wide data, such as the association between network paths, cumulative network metrics, global network utilization, etc. The document is currently very network-device-specific (as a data source). My suggestion would be to handle the centralized controller either as a separate section or part of the control plane and management plane telemetry.
[HS] We hold a view on a telemetry system that it collects data from different network planes, in which a centralized controller, if exists, is the host for the telemetry applications and a consumer for the data. In a sense, a controller acquires the original data from various network planes and it might further process the data and even generate new data based on telemetry data for applications. We summarize this process as “network operation applications” in the framework. Is this an acceptable view?
Note that in some cases the controller itself may be the source of telemetry data that is unique to it or derived from the telemetry data collected from the network elements. Some of the principles and taxonomy specific to the control plane and management plane telemetry could also be applied to the controller when it is required to provide the telemetry data to Network Operation Applications hosted outside. The scope of the document is focused on the network elements telemetry and further details related to controllers are thus out of scope.
o Something else that I find missing is the multi-domain aspects. You could mark it as out of scope or better yet do talk about it how there could possibly be a hierarchy and recursive nature in your framework to handle multi-domain. Currently, it is mentioned in passing while describing data fusion in section 3.4.
[HS] Multi-domain has many particular issues we think we should leave out of scope, although the general framework would still fit. We will make it clear in the new revision.
· Query
o Section 4.1
§ In figure 2, why MIB is mentioned in the management plane only, why not control plane when various control plane protocols have MIBs? Similarly, there are forwarding statistics MIB that might work in the forwarding plane? Also, add SNMP and ASN.1(?) in the table corresponding to MIB.
[HS] In the text we “note that the selected techniques [in the figure] just reflect the de facto state of the art and are by no means exhaustive.” Here we only mean to provide some representatives in each category.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
