Hi Tianran, I have read the I-D and I support its adoption.
Few comments - 1) Figure 1 uses the term "Service Network Models" which is not defined and not aligned to RFC 8309. 2) Is the attachment-id the key via which the SAP is linked to the physical topology? More text on this would be useful. 3) Consider adding an example (JSON or XML) of how this model would be used alongside L3SM. 4) Can SAP be used for NNI? Some clarification would be nice! Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 7:42 AM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran= 40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi WG, > > > > I assume most of you are back to work. > > Hope you had a good holiday. > > > > As a follow up action after IETF 111, this mail starts a working group > adoption call for draft-dbwb-opsawg-sap-00. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dbwb-opsawg-sap/ > > > > This document defines a YANG data model for representing an abstract view > of the provider network topology containing the points from which its > services can be attached (e.g., basic connectivity, VPN, network slices). > > > > Please review and comment. > > We will conclude this adoption call after two weeks. > > > > Cheers, > > Tianran > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
