Subject: Questions regarding the draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:32:58 +0200

Dear Authors,
I have some questions related to OAM aspect of service and network
management automation and much appreciate your consideration:

   - I couldn't find Networking Working Group to which the draft seems to
   be attributed. In your opinion, in which of IETF WGs you see this work to
   be the most relevant?
   - I couldn't find any reference to the process of Sevice Activation
   Testing (SAT) in the document. Are you planning to cover it later or see
   the absence of any SAT work at IETF as an obstacle to completing the
   closed-loop lifecycle for a service?
   - Figure in Section 3 "Network Service and Resource Models" refers to
   OAM and PM separately. Do you see PM not being part of overall OAM toolset?
   - in Section 3.1.2 in regard to LIME models, you've stated: "These three
   models can be used to provide consistent reporting, configuration and
   representation." Do you have evidence in support of this statement?
   - Figure 2 lists BFD, LSP Ping, and MPLS-TP models under OAM. In your
   opinion, are these three models sufficient to perform 'F' and 'P' of FCAPS
   network management, i.e., Fault Management and Performance Monitoring,
   adequately? (Should note that LSP Ping and MPLS-TP YANG models are only
   individual drafts);

Regards,
Greg