Subject: [lmap] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-framework-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 09:03:53 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lmap-framework-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-framework/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document provides a framework, as such it is not defining the
specific final pieces.  Section 2 reads:

   Other LMAP specifications will define an information model, the
   associated data models, and select/extend one or more protocols for
   the secure communication: . . .

I believe there are at least 2 superfluous forward references that the
document can live without.

1. Information Model.  For example, in Section 5:

   The protocol model is closely related to the Information Model
   [I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model], which is the abstract definition
   of the information carried by the protocol.  (If there is any
   difference between this document and the Information Model, the
   latter is definitive, since it is on the standards track.)  The
   purpose of both is to provide a protocol and device independent view,
   which can be implemented via specific protocols.  LMAP defines a
   specific Control Protocol and Report Protocol, but others could be
   defined by other standards bodies or be proprietary.  However it is
   important that they all implement the same Information Model and
   protocol model, in order to ease the definition, operation and
   interoperability of large-scale Measurement Systems.

Reference is made to Information Model work in progress that could match
this document.  Given the disclaimer in the text about potential
differences, I think that leaving a reference in the text could cause
confusion.  IOW, I'm suggesting you take out the reference and the
disclaimer, and just let the Information Model draft speak for itself.

2. Registry for Performance Metrics.  Section 5.2.2:

   o  the Measurement Task configurations, each of which needs:

      *  the Metric, specified as a URI to a registry entry; it includes
         the specification of a Measurement Method.  The registry could
         be defined by the IETF [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], locally
         by the operator of the Measurement System or perhaps by another
         standards organisation.

The framework is leaving the door open for multiple ways to define a
registry, but is making reference to a specific one (still WIP)..it just
causes confusion.

Neither of these comments are major, not do they take away from the
technical value of the document.  Mostly suggestions to improve the
clarity of what the framework is proposing.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:10:34 +0200

Hi Alvaro,

Thanks for your review.
See in-line.
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-framework/
There is actually a correlation between the 
[I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model] and the high level primitives 
documented in the framework.
Just as one example:

    +-----------------+ +-------------+
        |                 | | Measurement |
        |  Controller |===================================|  Agent      |
        +-----------------+ +-------------+

        Instruction:                            ->
        [(Measurement Task configuration
            URI of Metric(
           [Input Parameter],
           (Role)
           (interface),
           (Cycle-ID)
           (measurement point)),
         (Report Channel),
         (Schedule),
         (Suppression information)]
                                                 <- Response(details)

        The Instruction defines information with the following aims
        ([I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model] defines the consequent list of
        information elements):

           *  the Metric, specified as a URI to a registry entry; it
    includes
              the specification of a Measurement Method.  The registry could
                     ...

Considering that we needed some agreement on the information model to 
document the framework, and considering that the information model is 
stable, I'm not too concerned about the forward reference to the 
information model.
LMAP could have been submitting the framework and the information model 
at the same time, but chose to submit first the framework and then the 
information model AND the YANG data model at the same time.

> registry, but is making reference to a specific one (still WIP)..it just
I understand where you come from. The fact is that LMAP requires 
performance metric definitions, so it should be mentioned.
Potential new text:

       *  the Metric, specified as a URI to a registry entry; it includes
          the specification of a Measurement Method.  Note that the IETF
	 currently works on such a registry specification
          [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry].

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:10:36 +0000

Alvaro, Benoit
Thanks!

On comment 1, about references to the Information model:
I’m happy to keep as-is, as Benoit suggests (providing it doesn’t hold up this document)

On comment 2 and Benoit’s reply

If I remember some earlier discussion, it wasn’t obvious to everyone that there can be non-IETF registries.

How about this:

         the specification of a Measurement Method. The registry could be defined by a standards organisation or locally by the operator of the Measurement System. Note that the IETF

phil

From: lmap [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: 14 April 2015 10:11
To: Alvaro Retana; The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lmap] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-framework-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alvaro,

Thanks for your review.
See in-line.

COMMENT:

disclaimer, and just let the Information Model draft speak for itself.
There is actually a correlation between the [I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model] and the high level primitives documented in the framework.
Just as one example:
   +-----------------+                                   +-------------+
   |                 |                                   | Measurement |
   |  Controller     |===================================|  Agent      |
   +-----------------+                                   +-------------+

   Instruction:                            ->

      *  the Metric, specified as a URI to a registry entry; it includes
         the specification of a Measurement Method.  The registry could
                ...
Considering that we needed some agreement on the information model to document the framework, and considering that the information model is stable, I'm not too concerned about the forward reference to the information model.
LMAP could have been submitting the framework and the information model at the same time, but chose to submit first the framework and then the information model AND the YANG data model at the same time.

         standards organisation.

causes confusion.
I understand where you come from. The fact is that LMAP requires performance metric definitions, so it should be mentioned.
Potential new text:

Regards, Benoit

.

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:23:21 +0000

On 4/14/15, 5:10 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

This provided some of the missing background.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:25:24 +0000

On 4/14/15, 10:10 AM, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

How about this:

Thank works for me.

Thanks!

Alvaro.