Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-11.txt> (Service Assurance for Intent-based Networking Architecture) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello Tom,
Thanks for your review. We tried to address your comments, see inline.

Diff is here: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12

Best,
Jean

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday 9 November 2022 12:07
> To: last-call@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: opsawg@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-
> architecture@xxxxxxxx; opsawg-chairs@xxxxxxxx; mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-
> 11.txt> (Service Assurance for Intent-based Networking Architecture) to
> Informational RFC
> 
> On 06/11/2022 11:02, The IESG wrote:
> >
> > The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management
> > Area Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: -
> > 'Service Assurance for Intent-based Networking Architecture'
> >    <draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-11.txt> as
> Informational
> >    RFC
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2022-11-20. Exceptionally,
> > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please
> > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> 
> This I-D uses 'type' in several different senses, mostly without qualification.
> 
> In the companion YANG module I-D, one use of type is key - literally, in the
> YANG sense - but there is no explanation as to what a type is.  It is crucial to
> the YANG module - obviously - but the explanation of it there is circular
> IMHO.  This I-D gives one example only of what a type is and I think that that
> is inadequate.  I think that this I-D needs to explain what is and what is not a
> type, with guidelines that can be applied by those creating supplementary
> YANG modules.  The YANG I-D should then reference this explanation and
> should also probably qualify all uses of 'type' to make it clear what is being
> referred to.

Removed one unqualified use of type, otherwise the object being typed should be clear from the sentence.

> 
> 'parameter' also seems problematic.  The YANG I-D calls for augmenting
> modules to add a YANG case to a choice with parameter types suitable for
> the case but gives no guidance.  These parameters are used, as in this I-D, to
> decide whether or not the same service instance type is being referred to.  I
> think this I-D needs to provide guidance as to what a suitable parameter is,
> how and where it is used, namespace, uniqueness, and constraints that that
> imposes on the choice thereof.
> 

Added a paragraph:

                                                                       	
		 	   When designing a new type of subservice, one should carefully define	
		 	   what is the assured object or functionality.  Then, the parameters	
		 	   must be chosen as a minimal set that completely identify the object	
		 	   (see examples from the previous paragraph).  Parameters cannot change	
		 	   during the lifecycle of a subservice.  For instance, an IP address is	
		 	   a good parameter when assuring a connectivity towards that address	
		 	   (i.e. a given device can reach a given IP address), however it's a	
		 	   not a good parameter to identify an interface as the IP address	
		 	   assigned to that interface can be changed.


> Tom Petch
> 
> > Abstract
> >
> >
> >     This document describes an architecture that aims at assuring that
> >     service instances are running as expected.  As services rely upon
> >     multiple sub-services provided by a variety of elements including the
> >     underlying network devices and functions, getting the assurance of a
> >     healthy service is only possible with a holistic view of all involved
> >     elements.  This architecture not only helps to correlate the service
> >     degradation with symptoms of a specific network component but also to
> >     list the services impacted by the failure or degradation of a
> >     specific network component.
> >
> > The file can be obtained via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-a
> > rchitecture/
> >
> > The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
> >
> >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3858/
> > _______________________________________________
> > IETF-Announce mailing list
> > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>   .
> >

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux