Subject: [lmap] streamlining the usage of tags

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:45:27 +0100

Here is a proposal to streamline the usage of tags so that tags can be
efficiently used both for suppression (identifying the set of
schedules or actions to suppress) and for reporting what the framework
calls measurement cycle identifiers (see also the email thread 'LMAP
Result Correlation').

1) change ma-suppression-tags -> ma-suppression-match

   Explain that matching is using glob-style pattern (* matches any
   sequence of characters, ?  matches a single arbitrary character, []
   matches a set or sequence of characters, \ followed by a character
   matches the following character). (This definition is consistent
   with Posix fnmatch()).

   The ma-suppression-match values are going to match ma-schedule-tags
   or ma-action-tags (plus any tags inherited from the referenced
   task). Multiple ma-suppression-match result in the union of the
   individual matches.

   Rationale: Glob style matching allows to use tags that have a
   certain structure. For example, all schedules belonging a regulator
   X's campaign in year YYYY could be tagged with X-YYYY and then I
   can easily suppress lets say all fcc measurements (fcc-*) or all
   measurements in 2016 (*-2016) etc. Right now, we only have all and
   an explicit list of tags.

   Q: Does it make sense to suppress actions contained in a schedule?
      Or is it sufficient to suppress whole schedules? If we allow to
      suppress individual actions, what does this mean in pipelined
      execution mode? I would say it breaks the pipeline, that is, all
      subsequent actions will as a consequence of breaking the
      pipeline be suppressed as well.

2) change ma-suppression-tags -> ma-schedule-tags

   The schedule tags may be used for matching suppressions but they
   will also be echoed with result reports.

   Rationale: Instead of tags for suppression matching and measurement
   cycle id reporting, we use a single list of tags.

3) change ma-action-suppression-tags -> ma-action-tags

   The action tags will be echoed with result reports. The tags will
   not be suppression specific.

   Rationale: Instead of tags for suppression matching and measurement
   cycle id reporting, we use a single list of tags.

4) change ma-task-cycle-id -> ma-task-tags

   Change this into a list of tag values. Explain somewhere that a
   measurement cycle identifier can be encoded in the task tags or
   schedule tags or action tags.

   Rationale: Alignment with the YANG data model.

The tags of schedules and actions (and those inherited from the tasks)
will also be reported in the results. How this is done will be the
subject of a separate proposal. (Note that ma-report-task-obj is kind
of a misnomer since what is being executed are actions triggered by
schedules.)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:51:38 +0000

Juergen,

I know in section 5.2 of BBF TR-304 (https://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-304.pdf) there are specific requirements outlined for suppression.

These requirements were reflected in the information model - So the concepts of suppressing a schedule or individual action is necessary if I read the requirements correctly.

I am alittle concerned about merging the option tags with the suppression tags simply because we do not have a way of identifying one type of tag by another.

One is used for correlation of suppression messages; the other for actions/tasks...

BR,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 10:45 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lmap] streamlining the usage of tags

Here is a proposal to streamline the usage of tags so that tags can be efficiently used both for suppression (identifying the set of schedules or actions to suppress) and for reporting what the framework calls measurement cycle identifiers (see also the email thread 'LMAP Result Correlation').

The tags of schedules and actions (and those inherited from the tasks) will also be reported in the results. How this is done will be the subject of a separate proposal. (Note that ma-report-task-obj is kind of a misnomer since what is being executed are actions triggered by
schedules.)

/js