Subject: [Teas] Several questions draft-ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 13:45:17 -0700

Dear Authors,
thank you for writing this document, developing these data models. I
wholeheartedly agree with you that up-to-date telemetry information is
essential in closing the control circuit ensuring autonomous self-healing
networking. I've read the document and have several questions; much
appreciate your help in clarifying them:

   - in listing the benefits of performance monitoring, as it interpreted
   in the draft, you've mentioned "proactive re-optimization". As I understand
   it, telemetry information reflects network conditions that already happen
   and by the time a subscriber to performance monitoring notifications
   receives the next update, it is probably closer to near-real-time process.
   If then an application triggers corrective actions, e.g., scaling out, how
   that is proactive? I imagine that to trigger scaling out, a particular
   parameter or a group of parameters had crossed the predefined threshold and
   the state has been stable for threshold-time. Hence, the system is
   reactive, not proactive.
   - you've included a number of performance parameters in data models. I
   couldn't find a discussion of the selection process. i.e., why these
   parameters were selected, and why others are not included? I hope you can
   point me to where I can find that discussion.
   - how do you see your work in relation to
   draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm/>?
   Some of the performance metrics reported through
   the draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm are part of the STAMP YANG
   data model <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang/>
   .

Regards,
Greg