Subject: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization-03

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:23:16 -0400

As promised at the mic during opsawg at 104, here is a more detailed
review of this draft.

Overall, I found it a bit difficult to read.  It could stand from an
editorial pass to clarify grammar and sentence structure.  This document
wants to say a lot, and it would benefit from more clarity to convey its
points.

As to the destiny of this document, I'm a bit unclear.  It does a lot to
spell out some of the existing YANG modules developed within the IETF
and how they might fit together; but that number will definitely change
over time.  If the intent is, like with the YANG Catalog documents, to
continually evolve this as a set of guidelines, that may make sense.

I'm also reminded of Benoit's presentation on telemetry on Thursday
during 104 where he called for a combination of tools, the models
themselves, and the collaboration with other SDOs.  This document really
needs that cross-SDO element as not everything can be solved with the
IETF.  Said another way, even if operators were clamoring for vendors to
implement IETF modules, do the modules they need exist today?  Are they
fully ratified?  We would love operators to push IETF modules more, but
I'm not convinced they will if they don't see the value or functionality
in them.  This document could help illustrate that (if it continues to
evolve to subsume other use cases), but I would love to understand the
_gaps_ from operators, and then where other SDOs may help.

On a more tactical level, you mention YANG Catalog in Section 2.4.  YANG
Catalog doesn’t manage modules per se.  It manages the metadata around
modules.  It helps different types of users find the modules they need,
understand where modules are supported, and view module characteristics
such as lifecycle, structure, changes, etc.

You describe some of those elements below, but I want to avoid the
concept the YC.o “manages” the modules themselves.

Joe