Hi Qin, On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 6:05 PM Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dhruv for valuable review, see reply inline below. > > > > *发件人:* OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] *代表 *Dhruv Dhody > *发送时间:* 2022年1月19日 20:40 > *收件人:* Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *抄送:* opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > *主题:* Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-dbwb-opsawg-sap-00 > > > > 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. > > [Qin Wu] I think it is referred to network configuration models since it > sits on top of controller described in figure 3 of RFC8309. But I am not > sure RFC8309 is better reference since RFC8309 introducse layered SDN > architecture and split orchestrator into service orchestrator and network > orchestrator which intends to align with MEF SLO project. > I suggest we can align with RFC8969 instead, which use the term “network > model” and reduce confusion when the number of layers in our targeted > architecture is different from on described in figure 3 of RFC8309. > Dhruv: Works for me! > 2) Is the attachment-id the key via which the SAP is linked to the > physical topology? More text on this would be useful. > > [Qin Wu] Yes the attachment-id is the key for service-attachment –point > list which can mapped to the specific port in the physical topology, yes, > we can make this clear in the update. > > > 3) Consider adding an example (JSON or XML) of how this model would be > used alongside L3SM. > > [Qin Wu] Good suggestion and will add. > > > 4) Can SAP be used for NNI? Some clarification would be nice! > [Qin Wu] Yes, I think we cover NNI use case, see the text in the > introduction > > “ > > With the help of > > other data models (e.g., L3SM [RFC8299 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8299>] or L2SM [RFC8466 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8466>]), > > hierarchical control elements could determine the feasibility of an > > end-to-end IP connectivity or L2VPN connectivity and therefore derive > > the sequence of domains and the points of interconnection to use. > > > > ” > > I think the point of interconnection can be exposed attachment point in > the NNI case. > > > Dhruv: In that case, what would be the sap-type is not clear to me. Maybe we need a new type for this and perhaps a figure that also describes this case. Thanks! Dhruv > 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
