Many thanks Camilo for your comments, answering your points.
1. You are correct, we will run a new iteration through the young modules and add the direct link between license module and feature, as individual features within assets can be licensed. 2. You are also correct here. It is considered that some attributes will need to be feed directly from the vendors, i.e. reading from a catalog. It is mentioned in one of the Use cases: The Software Conformance use case uses data that might not be provided by the asset itself. Data needs to be provided and maintained also by the asset developers, through e.g., asset catalog information. Similar logic applies to a feature catalog, where the asset developer maintains the data and updates it adequately based on existing bugs, security advisories, etc. 1. Point taken, we are also looking to add more concrete example for next revisions. Looking forward to your continued collaboration, Marisol P From: Camilo Cardona <juancamilo.card...@imdea.org> Date: Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 02:08 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org> Cc: Marisol Palmero <mpalm...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-00.txt Hello opsawg, I gave a read to draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-01, and discussed it with Marisol on a call, but I thought I could share my main remarks here: 1. One of the basic use cases of the draft is to find information about features and licenses (e.g. which feature(s) are enabled by a license, which license(s) I need for a feature, etc). However, I cannot find a way of “linking” licenses to features in the model. The model does link licenses to assets, but I think there is a need for a direct relation between license and features. 2. In the text, there is a bit of ambiguity of what the yang model covers, and what should be provided by vendors. In the use cases from 4.3 to 4.6, you need the most recent data from vendors to run the analysis that each point describes. Are we going to structure that data too? It seems this is out of the scope of the draft, and that is fine... but I did wonder that when I was reading since I was expecting that data to appear later in the models. 3. As always in drafts with yang models, we are missing some concrete examples. Besides that, the purpose of the draft is clear to me, and I wish it were this easy to retrieve this data in a standard way. Thanks, Camilo C On 6 Oct 2021, at 19:00, Juan Camilo Cardona Restrepo <jccardon...@gmail.com<mailto:jccardon...@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear OPSA WG, We've just posted a new draft that introduces a data model for lifecycle management and operations: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-00.txt We don't yet have data models that deal with data concerning adoption and usability, licensing, supported features and capabilities, enabled features and capabilities, etc. of a hardware or software, physical or virtual component. We hope that the new draft can help fill this gap. We greatly appreciate your thoughts and comments. Many thanks, Marisol Marisol Palmero CCIE #5122 | Technical Leader EMEAR | Cisco Customer Experience CTO | P: +34.91.201.2643 | M: +34.629.634.595 On 23/08/2021, 22:04, "internet-dra...@ietf.org"<mailto:"internet-dra...@ietf.org"> <internet-dra...@ietf.org><mailto:<internet-dra...@ietf.org>> wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Marisol Palmero and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo Revision: 00 Title: Data Model for Lifecycle Management and Operations Document date: 2021-08-23 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 48 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo/ Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo Abstract: This document motivates and specifies a data model for lifecycle management and operations. It describes the motivation and requirements to collect asset-centric metrics including but not limited to asset adoption and usability, licensing, supported features and capabilities, enabled features and capabilities, etc.; with the primary objective to measure and improve the overall user experience along the lifecycle journey, from technical requirements and technology selection through advocacy and renewal, including the end of life of an asset. The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
