Subject: [Supa] draft-ietf-supa-policy-management-framework review

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 21:02:22 -0400

I have read the latest version of this draft.
While there is some minor cleanup that would help the document, this 
document is in good shape and helps explain the usage of policy. With 
minor repairs, this document is worth publishing as an Informational RFC.

Minor:
     The definition of YANG should note that it can be used to define 
the model for NetConf or RestConf.

     The definition of OSS should be tweaked slightly to make clear that 
OSS are concerned with higher layer concepts, as distinct from network 
managements Systems.  Possibly replace "manage their networks" with 
"control the high level behavior of the network environment above the 
element or network management layers."

      In section 3.1, when the cardinalites of the relationships in 
figure 3 are given, it may make sense to indicate that the cardinalities 
apply when resources or Services are being controlled by policies. 
(Otherwise the cardinalities would have to be 0 on the Policy end, 
rather than 1.
     Also, since any given policy may control Resources, Services, or 
both, the cardinality on the Resource and Service end should be 0..n.

Editorial:

Introduction, Paragraph 1:  Add a descriptor to "variety", for example, 
"Meanwhile, the rapid growth of traffic and the increased variation in 
kinds of content being carried makes ..."

Section 3.4 beginss "An information model is abstract.  As such, it 
cannot be directly instantiated."  That is misleading phrasing, due to 
the fact that abstract vs concrete is a different dimension than IM vs 
DM.  I would suggest instead "An information model is, by definition, a 
description of the structure independent of specific representations 
such as YANG or TOSCA."  And remove the parenthetical.

Thank you,
Joel