Howdy Authors, Thanks for the excellent work on the I-D. I've been following the work since its inception and thought I'd finally spend some (biological) CPU cycles to review the latest version of the document.
Firstly, the document does a great job in defining network-wide behaviour for an OAM scheduling wrapper. Demonstrating how existing OAM YANG models, together with the common scheduling approach, help align implementations and reduce duplicated modelling effort. The IETF should always strive to explain how its technologies can be applied, and I think this document does a great job of that. Ok, onto my review. Nothing too controversial. Hopefully, you find these useful. Poke me for anything that is not clear. #1 Abstract text change: - "network diagnosis on-demand" With: - "to support on-demand network diagnosis" #2 Abstract clarity Replace text: - "relying upon … OAM tests" With: - "using … OAM tests" (Personally, I found "relying upon" read awkwardly.) #3 Abstract applicability Replace text: - "primarily intended for use by an SDN controller or network orchestrator, rather than by individual network nodes." With: - "intended for use by external management and orchestration systems (including SDN controllers and network orchestrators), rather than by individual network nodes". #4 Introduction Replace: - "the management of OAM operations becomes also essential" With: - "managing OAM operations is also essential" #6 Introduction Replace: - "as the scheduling of test generally implies" With: - "as scheduling tests generally implies" #7 Terminology typo In Section 1.1, replace: - "it includes the type test" With: - "it includes the test type" #8 Prefix table module name mismatch In Table 1 (Section 1.3), replace: - "ietf-oam-unitary-tests" With: - "ietf-oam-unitary-test" (Need to decide on singular or plural for consistency. Especially as your module name is singular elsewhere.) #9 Section 2 Replace: - "Following, some illustrative examples are presented." With: - "The following illustrative examples are provided." #11 Troubleshooting In 2.1, replace: - "find the candidate root cause" With: - "identify likely root causes" #12 Birth certificate In 2.2, replace: - "if the service is a Virtual Private Network (VPN). Two-Way…” With: - "if the service is a Virtual Private Network (VPN), Two-Way…" #13 Proactive Supervision In 2.3, replace: - "require to fulfill" With: - "require fulfilment of" #14 Proactive Supervision In 2.3, split/replace the final clause: - "…before they impact the customer or end user, or to prevent or minimize…" With: - "…before they impact the customer or end user. This helps prevent or minimize…" #15 Section 3.1 Replace: - "out of the scope" With: - "out of scope" #16 Section 3.2 spacing typo Replace: - "identifies theproperties" With: - "identifies the properties" #17 Section 3.2 Section 3.1 explicitly mentions 'unitary-test-status', but you repeat it in section 3.2. Is it really needed in this sub-section too? It feels clunky and redundant to me, but hey ho. - "`unitary-test-status` enumerates the state of the OAM test." #18 Clarify sequencing semantics Add to 3.2 (after the first paragraph) a short, normative description of: - How ordering is expressed (e.g., list order, explicit index, or `ordered-by user`) - Whether "stop on first failure" is supported/expected (and where indicated) - Where repetition applies (whole sequence vs per-unitary-test) Thinking aloud, I'm wondering what would happen without this; could implementers interpret sequences differently? #19 Unit test module filename vs revision mismatch In 4.1, `<CODE BEGINS> file [email protected], but the module revision block shows revision "2025-09-15". #20 YANG module copyright year. In the YANG module header (4.1), update “Copyright (c) 2024 …” #21 Status enum mismatch: “finish(ed)” Text uses “finished”; YANG uses `enum "finish"`. Replace YANG `enum "finish"` with `enum "finished"` and update references. #22 Status consistency: “on-going” vs “ongoing”. Just need to be consistent in the document/code. #23 Naming consistency: “oam-unitary-tests” vs “oam-unitary-test”. Again, just need to be consistent in the document/code. #24 Using Device Mode Within OAM Scheduling Models - “Using Device Mode Within OAM Scheduling Models” With: - “Using Device Models Within OAM Scheduling Models” #25 Using Device Mode Within OAM Scheduling Models Replace: - “As an exmaple” With: - “As an example” #26 Using Device Mode Within OAM Scheduling Models - “This approach requires to recreate new YANG models…” With: - “This approach requires recreating YANG models…” #27 Conflict reporting I wondered if this approach was too course. Currently conflicts are effectively “encoded” as “error”. Could we add a structured approach with additional detail (such as): - A `conflict-info` container (resource, overlapping task, time window, reason), or; - Reuse/align with the schedule model’s conflict/status reporting (preferred if available). #28 Pre-execution admission control In 6.1, replace: - “When a new `unitary-test` or `test-sequence` are scheduled…” With: - “When a new `unitary-test` or `test-sequence` is scheduled…” Actually, thinking further, how about a sentence clarifying whether the server is expected to: - reject conflicts at create-time, or; - accept and later mark as conflict, and how that behaviour is advertised (capability/feature/status)? #29 Security Considerations Replace: - “In which refers to the scheduling of the tests, security considerations in …” With: - “With respect to scheduling, the security considerations in … also apply.” BR, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 20 October 2025 16:33 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [OPSAWG]I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-03.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-03.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) WG of the IETF. Title: A YANG Data Model for Network Diagnosis using Scheduled Sequences of OAM Tests Authors: Luis M. Contreras Victor Lopez Qin Wu Name: draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-03.txt Pages: 33 Dates: 2025-10-20 Abstract: This document defines a YANG data model for network diagnosis on- demand relying upon Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) tests. This document defines both 'oam-unitary-test' and 'oam-test- sequence' YANG modules to manage the lifecycle of network diagnosis procedures, primarily intended for use by an SDN controller or network orchestrator, rather than by individual network nodes. The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-03.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
