Hi Benoit, Thanks for your feedback.
> I mean: what is the value of an information model without a respective > data model, or a mapping to data model(s)? Whilst it's true that having a data model is essential for implementing an information model effectively, our focus is on standardising a framework for packet loss reporting. Once the information model is agreed, we can proceed to apply that to the corresponding data models. Separating the process into two phases allows us to ensure that the information model itself is well defined for network operations use cases and can be used across multiple data models. Cheers John ο»ΏOn 24/01/2024, 05:07, "OPSAWG on behalf of Benoit Claise" <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Dear all, See in-line. On 1/17/2024 12:51 PM, Henk Birkholz wrote: > Dear OPSAWG members, > > this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of > >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02.html >> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02.html> > > ending on Wednesday, January 31st. > > As a reminder, this I-D describes an information model in support of > automated network mitigation on what and how to report about > unintentional packet discards/losses that can have an impact on > service level objectives. Implementation of the informational model, > which could manifest, e.g., via NETCONF/YANG, SNMP or IPFIX, is > out-of-scope. I read the previous version, and even provided feedback to John. This is interesting work and I like the way the information it's structured. However, I am asking myself: what is the value of information model these days? I mean: what is the value of an information model without a respective data model, or a mapping to data model(s)? Regards, Benoit > > The chairs acknowledge feedback to and interest for the topic during > the IETF118 meeting and on the list after afterwards. We would like to > gather feedback from the WG if there is interest to further contribute > and review. > > Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments > you may have. > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg> Amazon Data Services UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales with registration number 09959151 with its registered office at 1 Principal Place, Worship Street, London, EC2A 2FA, United Kingdom. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
