Thanks a lot Jeff,
Comments like this one are extremely helpful.
Thanks,
Daniele
From: JEAN-FRANCOIS BOUQUIER, Vodafone
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:20 PM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli ; maqiufang (A)
Cc: inventory-y...@ietf.org; ivy-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg ;
cc...@ietf.org
Subje
Dear Daniele/Qiufang and all,
From operator side, we definitely have use cases for an IETF data model
covering HW network inventory only for the MPI interface (e.g. between P-PNC
and O-PNC and MDSC).
As mentioned already several times, this has been identified as a gap for a
long time now in
Hello Daniele,
Oh, absolutely nothing with bad intent or complain. I apologize if the “there
is always something was wrong” phrase was too negative.
All models change, more if they aim for concepts that are hard to abstract, as
this one. I was just wondering if in general, as a policy,
Hi Camilo,
As you said there will always be something that "could have been done
better"...but we'll not request for the publication of a document/model of
low quality. Moreover both the documents we're considering for adoption
have been there for a while with a lot of experts working on both of t
Hello group,
Daniele, thanks for the previous summary. Option 4 is a good compromise to
explore first.
One question for chairs (maybe even AD): are we aiming at standardising a base
model quickly and then accepting that something was wrong (there is always
something wrong) and doing a n
Daniele & Qiufang,
I would like to request a slot to discuss the technical issues that need to be
addressed to evolve draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang-02 to become the
network inventory base model, including how the overall network inventory model
can be modularized
If there is enough a
Hi chairs/WG
As I didn’t answer the initial survey yet, I thought I was still on time. I
take the opportunity to base my answer on your analysis.
My preference is for the below option4, based more on the “simplicity and
focus”, with the starting approach of draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-ya
+1
I agree with Jeff, Dieter, and Gabriele.
My preference is option 1 to adopt draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang-02
in IVY and evolve it to become the network inventory base model.
This draft already addresses the main requirement operators highlighted since
the beginning of the inventory w
Hi Qiufang, Daniele and all,
I also prefer option 1. to adopt draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang-02 in
IVY, since I agree on the clear separation between inventory and operational
and topology data, and also the consistence with other established standards.
At the same time, I second a
+1
Thanks,
Dieter
On 04-Sep-23 16:41, Gabriele Galimberti wrote:
I agree with Jeff too.
Best Regards,
Gabriele Galimberti
Via Melgacciata, 13
20813 – Bovisio Masciago (MB)
Italy
+39 3357481947
*Da: *CCAMP per conto di "JEAN-FRANCOIS
BOUQUIER, Vodafone"
*Data: *lunedì 4 settembre 202
10 matches
Mail list logo
