Incident Management for Network Services
draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Chong Feng , Tong Hu , Luis M. Contreras , Thomas Graf , Qin Wu , Chaode Yu , Nigel Davis | ||
| Last updated | 2023-07-07 (Latest revision 2023-03-13) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-feng-nmop-network-incident-yang | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-01
OPSAWG C. Feng, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track T. Hu
Expires: 8 January 2024 CMCC
LM. Contreras
Telefonica I+D
T. Graf
Swisscom
Q. Wu
C. Yu
Huawei
N. Davis
Ciena
7 July 2023
Incident Management for Network Services
draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-01
Abstract
A network incident refers to an unexpected interruption of a network
service, degradation of a network service quality, or sub-health of a
network service. Different data sources including alarms, metrics
and other anomaly information can be aggregated into few amount of
incidents by correlation analysis and the service impact analysis.
This document also defines YANG modules to support the incident
lifecycle management. The YANG modules are meant to provide a
standard way to report, diagnose, and resolve incidents for the sake
of enhanced network services.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 January 2024.
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Sample Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Incident-Based Trouble Tickets dispatching . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Fault Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Fault Labelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Incident Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Interworking with Alarm Management . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Interworking with SAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Relationship with RFC8969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Relationship with Trace Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Functional Interface Requirements between the Client and the
Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Incident Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Incident Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. Incident Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Incident Data Model Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Identifying the Incident Instance . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. The Incident Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.1. Incident Instance Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.2. Operator Incident Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Incident Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Incident Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3. Incident Acknowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.4. Incident Diagnose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.5. Incident Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. Incident Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.1. The "IETF XML" Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.2. The "YANG Module Names" Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix A. Changes between revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1. Introduction
[RFC8969] defines a framework for Automating Service and Network
Management with YANG to full life cycle network management. A set of
YANG data models have already been developed in IETF for Network
performance monitoring and fault monitoring,e.g.,A YANG [RFC7950]
data model for alarm management [RFC8632] defines a standard
interface for alarm management. A data model for Network and VPN
Service Performance Monitoring[RFC9375] defines a standard interface
for network performance management. In addition, distributed tracing
mechanism defined in [W3C-Trace-Context] can also be used to analyze
and debug operations, such as configuration transactions, across
multiple distributed systems.
However these YANG data models for network maintenance are based on
specific data source information and manage alarms and performance
metrics data separately in various different management systems. In
addition, the frequency and quantity of alarms and performance
metrics data reported to Operating Support System (OSS) are increased
dramatically (in many cases multiple orders of magnitude) with the
growth of service types and complexity and grealy overwhelm OSS
platforms; with known depdendency relation between fault, alarm and
events, the traditional solutions, e.g., data compression are time-
consuming and labor-intensive, usually rely on maintenance engineers'
experience for data analysis, which result in low processing
efficiency, inaccurate root cause identification and duplicated
tickets. And, it is also difficult to assess the impact of alarms,
performance metrics and other anomaly data on network services.
To address these challenges, an incident-centric solution is proposed
for network level root cause analysis, service impact analysis and
network troubleshooting, which can span across multiple layer and
multiple domains. A network incident refers to an unexpected
interruption of a network service, degradation of a network service
quality, or sub-health of a network service. Different data sources
including alarms, metrics and other anomaly information can be
aggregated into few amount of incidents by correlation analysis and
the service impact analysis. For example, the protocols related to
the interface fail to work properly due to the interface down, large
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
amount of alarms may be reported to upper layer management system and
aggregated into one or a few incidents when some network services may
be affected by this incident (e.g. L3VPN services related with the
interface will become unavailable). An incident may also be raised
through the analysis of some network performance metrics, for
example, as described in SAIN
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture] , network services
can be decomposed to some sub-services, some metrics are monitored
for each sub-service, symptoms will occur if services/sub-services
are unhealthy(after analyzing metrics), these symptoms may raise one
incident when it causes degradation of the network services.
In addition, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)
play a important role in the processing of large amounts of data with
complex correlations. For example, Neural Network Algorithm or
Hierarchy Aggregation Algorithm can be used to replace manual alarm
correlation. Through online and offline learning, these algorithms
can be continuously optimized to improve the efficiency of fault
diagnosis.
This document defines the concepts, requirements, and architecture of
incident management. The document also defines a YANG data model for
incident lifecycle management, which improves troubleshooting
efficiency, ensures network service quality, and improves network
automation [RFC8969].
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The following terms are defined in [RFC8632] are not redefined here:
* alarm
The following terms are defined in this document:
Incident: An unexpected interruption of a network service,
degradation of network service quality, or sub-health of a network
service.
Incident management: Lifecycle management of incidents including
incident identification, reporting, acknowledge, diagnosis, and
resolution.
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
Incident management system: An entity which implements incident
management. It include incident management server and incident
management client.
Incident management server: An entity which provides some functions
of incident management. For example, it can detect an incident,
perform incident diagnosis, resolution and prediction,etc.
Incident management client: An entity which can manage incidents.
For example, it can receive incident notifications, query the
information of incidents, instruct the incident management server
to diagnose, resolve, etc.
3. Sample Use Cases
3.1. Incident-Based Trouble Tickets dispatching
Traditionally, the dispatching of trouble tickets is mostly based on
alarms data analysis and need to involve operators' maintenance
engineers. These operators' maintenance engineers are able to
monitor and detect that alarms are associated with the same network
fault. Therefore, they can correlate these alarms to the same
trouble ticket, which is in the low automation. If there are more
alarms, then the human costs for network maintenance are increased
accordingly.
Some operators preconfigure whitelist and adopt some coarse
granularity association rules for the alarm management. It seems to
improve fault management automation. However, some trouble tickets
could be missed if the filtering conditions are too tight. If the
filtering conditions are too loose, multiple trouble tickets would be
dispatched to the same fault.
It is hard to achieve a perfect balance between the automation and
duplicated trouble tickets under the traditional working situations.
However, with the help of the incident management, massive alarms can
be aggregated into a few incidents, multiple trouble tickets will be
saved. At the same time, incident management can keep high accuracy
and automation. This could be an answer to this pain point of
traditional trouble ticket dispatching.
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
3.2. Fault Locating
Currently, to accomplish fault isolation and fault localization,
maintenance experts need to correlate topology data, service data
together with huge amount of alarm data at different layers (e.g.,
optical layer, packet layer) to do the analysis. Sometimes some
cooperations from the construction engineers who work on site, are
required to attempt to make change configuration on devices and then
further investigate the corresponding root cause. Sometimes
cooperations between different operation teams are required to locate
fault either at the optical layer or packet layer.
For example, for a common cable interruption, maintenance experts
need to analyze the root cause alarm from large amount of alarms, and
then trace the root cause alarm in the network segment by segment.
Next, site engineers perform tests at the source station to locate
the interruption and locate the faulty optical exchange station.
Then they move to the located optical exchange station to replace or
splice fibers. During the whole process, multiple people are needed
inside and outside the site.
With the help of incident management, the system can automatically
locate the faulty segment, and eliminate the need for manual
analysis. By cooperating with the integrated Optical time-domain
reflectometer (OTDR) within the equipment, we can determine the
target optical exchange station before site visits. Multiple site
visits and time are saved.
3.3. Fault Labelling
Fiber cutover is a common maintenance scenario for Operators. During
the cutover process, maintenance experts must identify affected
devices based on the cutover object and their experience. They will
give these devices a mark to inform other maintenance engineers that
it is not necessary to dispatch trouble tickets before the ending of
cutover.
However, depending on the human experience, it is very likely to make
some mistakes. For example, some devices are missing to mark and
some devices are marked incorrectly. If the devices are missing to
be marked, some trouble tickets will be dispatched during cutover,
which are not needed actually. If the devices are wrongly marked,
some fault not related to this cutover will be missing.
With incident management, maintenance experts only need to mark the
cutover objects and do not need to mark the devices that would be
affected. Because of the alarm aggregation capabilities and knowing
the relationship between root cause alarm and correlative alarm, the
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
fault management system can automatically identify correlative
alarms, without dispatching any trouble tickets to the affected
devices.
3.4. Energy Conservation
With the global trend of energy conservation, emission reduction and
safety management, more and more enterprises have joined the energy
conservation and emission reduction ranks and adopted measures to
turn off the power during non-working hours, making due contributions
to the green earth. However, this proactive power-off measure
periodically generates a large number of alarms on the network, and
the traditional Operation and Management system can not effectively
identify such non-real faults caused by the enterprise users.
Operators need to manually identify and rectify faults based on the
expert experience, wasting a large number of human resources.
Incident management can intelligently identify faults caused by
periodic power-off on the tenant side and directly identify faults.
As a result, operators do not need to dispatch trouble tickets for
such faults anymore, this can help to reduce human resource costs.
4. Incident Management Architecture
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
+----------------------+-------------------+
| |
| Incident Management Client |
| |
| |
+------------+---------+---------+---------+
^ | | |
|Incident |Incident |Incident |Incident
|Report |Ack |Diagnose |Resolve
| | | |
| V V V
+--+-------------------+---------+----------+
| |
| |
| Incident Management Server |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+----------------------+-----+--+-----------+
^ ^Abnormal ^
|Alarm |Operations |Metrics
|Report |Report |/Telemetry
| | V
+--------+-+-+-------+--------------++------------------+
| |
| Network |
| |
+------------------------------------+------------------+
Figure 1: Incident Management Architecture
Figure 1 illustrates the incident management architecture. Two key
components for the incident management are incident management client
and incident management server.
Incident management server can be deployed in network analytics
platform, controllers and provides functionalities such as incident
identification, report, diagnosis, resolution, querying for incident
lifecycle management.
Incident management client can be deployed in the network OSS or
other business systems of operators and invokes the functionalities
provided by incident management server to meet the business
requirements of fault management.
A typical workflow of incident management is as follows:
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
* Some alarms or abnormal operations, network performance metrics
are reported from the network. Incident management server
receives these alarms/abnormal operations/metrics and try to
analyze the correlation of them, if the incidents are identified,
it will be reported to the client. The impact of network services
will be also analyzed and will update the incident.
* Incident management client receives the incident raised by server,
and acknowledge it. Client may invoke the 'incident diagnose' rpc
to diagnose this incident to find the root causes.
* If the root causes have been found, the client can resolve this
incident by invoking the 'incident resolve' rpc operation,
dispatching a ticket or using other functions (e.g. routing
calculation,configuration)
4.1. Interworking with Alarm Management
+-----------------------------+
| OSS |
|+-------+ +-----------+ |
||alarm | | incident | |
||handler| | client | |
|+-------+ +-----------+ |
+---^---------------^---------+
| |
|alarm |incident
+---|---------------|---------+
| | controller | |
| | | |
|+--+---++ +-----------+ |
||alarm | | | |
||process+----->| incident | |
|| |alarm | server | |
|+------++ +-----------+ |
| ^ ^ |
+---+--------------|----------+
|alarm | metrics/trace/etc.
| |
+---+--------------+----------+
| network |
| |
+-----------------------------+
Figure 2: Interworking with alarm management
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
YANG model for the alarm management[RFC8632] defines a standard
interface to manage the lifecycle of alarms. Alarms represent the
undesirable state of network resources, alarm data model also defines
the root causes and impacted services fields, but there may lack
sufficient information to determine them in lower layer system
(mainly in devices level), so alarms do not always tell the status of
services or the root causes. As described in [RFC8632], alarm
management act as a starting point for high-level fault management.
While incident management often works at the network level, so it's
possible to have enough information to perform correlation and
service impact analysis. Alarms can work as one of data sources of
incident management and may be aggregated into few amount of
incidents by correlation analysis, network service impact and root
causes may be determined during incident process.
Incident also contains some related alarms,if needed users can query
the information of alarms by alarm management interface [RFC8632].
In some cases, e.g. cutover scenario, incident server may use alarm
management interface [RFC8632] to shelve some alarms.
Alarm management may keep the original process, alarms are reported
from network to network controller or analytics and then reported to
upper layer system(e.g. OSS). Upper layer system may store these
alarms and provide the information for fault analysis (e.g. deeper
analysis based on incident).
Compared with alarm management, incident management provides not only
incident reporting but also diagnosis and resolution functions, it's
possible to support self-healing and may be helpful for single-domain
closed-loop control.
Incident management is not a substitute for alarm management.
Instead, they can work together to implement fault management.
4.2. Interworking with SAIN
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
+----------------+
| incident client|
+----------------+
^
|incident
+-------+--------+
|incident server |
+----------------+
^
|symptoms
+-------+--------+
| SAIN |
| |
+----------------+
^
|metrics
+-------------+-------------+
| |
| network |
| |
+---------------------------+
Figure 3: Interworking with SAIN
SAIN [I-D.ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture] defines the
architecture of network service assurance. A network service can be
decomposed into some sub-services, and some metrics can be monitored
for sub-services. For example, a tunnel service can be decomposed
into some peer tunnel interface sub-services and IP connectivity sub-
service. If some metrics are evaluated to indicate unhealthy for
specific sub-service, some symptoms will be present. Incident server
may identify the incident based on symptoms, and then report it to
upper layer system. So, SAIN can be one way to identify incident,
services, sub-services and metrics can be preconfigured via APIs
defined by service assurance YANG model
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang] and incident will be
reported if symptoms match the condition of incident.
4.3. Relationship with RFC8969
[RFC8969] defines a framework for network automation using YANG, this
framework breaks down YANG modules into three layers, service layer,
network layer and device layer, and contains service deployment,
service optimization/assurance, and service diagnosis. Incident
works at the network layer and aggregates alarms, metrics and other
information from device layer, it's helpful to provfide service
assurance. And the incident diagnosis may be one way of service
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
diagnosis.
4.4. Relationship with Trace Context
W3C defines a common trace context[W3C-Trace-Context] for distributed
system tracing, [I-D.rogaglia-netconf-trace-ctx-extension] defines a
netconf extension for [W3C-Trace-Context] and
[I-D.quilbeuf-opsawg-configuration-tracing] defines a mechanism for
configuration tracing. If some errors occur when services are
deploying, it's very easy to identify these errors by distributed
system tracing, and an incident should be reported.
5. Functional Interface Requirements between the Client and the Server
5.1. Incident Identification
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
+--------------+
+--| Incident1 |
| +--+-----------+
| | +-----------+
| +--+ alarm1 |
| | +-----------+
| |
| | +-----------+
| +--+ alarm2 |
| | +-----------+
| |
| | +-----------+
| +--+ alarm3 |
| +-----------+
| +--------------+
+--| Incident2 |
| +--+-----------+
| | +-----------+
| +--+ metric1 |
| | +-----------+
| | +-----------+
| +--+ metric2 |
| +-----------+
|
| +--------------+
+--| Incident3 |
+--+-----------+
| +-----------+
+--+ alarm1 |
| +-----------+
|
| +-----------+
+--| metric1 |
+-----------+
Figure 4: Incident Identification
As described in Figure 4, multiple alarms, metrics, or hybrid can be
aggregated into an incident after analysis.
The incident management server MUST be capable of identifying
incidents. Multiple alarms, metrics and other information are
reported to incident server, and the server must analyze it and find
out the correlations of them, if the correlation match the incident
rules, incident will be identified and reported to the client.
Service impact analysis will be performed if an indent is identified,
and the content of incident will be updated if impacted network
services are detected.
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
AI/ML may be used to identify the incident. Expert system and online
learning can help AI to identify the correlation of alarms, metrics
and other information by time-base correlation algorithm, topo-based
correlation algorithm, etc. For example, if interface is down, then
many protocol alarms will be reported, AI will think these alarms
have some correlations. These correlations will be put into
knowledge base, and the incident will be identified faster according
to knowledge base next time.
As mentioned above, SAIN is another way to implement incident
identification. Observation timestamp defined in
[I-D.tgraf-yang-push-observation-time] and trace context defined in
[W3C-Trace-Context] may be helpful for incident identification.
+----------------------+
| |
| Orchestrator |
| |
+----+-----------------+
^VPN A Unavailable
|
+---+----------------+
| |
| Controller |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-----+--+-----+
^ ^ ^
IGP | |Interface |IGP Peer
Down | |Down | Abnormal
| | |
VPN A | | |
+-----------------+-+------------+------------------*
| \ +---+ ++-++ +-+-+ +---+ /|
| \ | | | | | | | | / |
| \|PE1+-------| P1+X--------|P2 +--------|PE2|/ |
| +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Example 1 of Incident Identification
As described in Figure 5, vpn a is deployed from PE1 to PE2, if a
interface of P1 is going down, many alarms are triggered, such as
interface down, igp down, and igp peer abnormal from P2. These
alarms are aggregated and analyzed by controller, and the incident
'vpn unavailable' is triggered by the controller.
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
+----------------------+
| |
| Orchestrator |
| |
+----+-----------------+
^VPN A Degradation
|
+---+----------------+
| |
| controller |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-----+--+-----+
^ ^
|Packet |Path Delay
|Loss |
| |
VPN A | |
+-------------------+------------+-------------------+
| \ +---+ ++-++ +-+-+ +---+ / |
| \ | | | | | | | | / |
| \|PE1+-------|P1 +---------|P2 +--------|PE2|/ |
| +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |
+----------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Example 2 of Incident Identification
As described in Figure 6, controller collect the network metrics from
network elements, it finds the packet loss of P1 and the path delay
of P2 exceed the thresholds, an incident 'VPN A degradation' may be
triggered after analysis.
5.2. Incident Diagnosis
After an incident is reported to the incident management client, the
client MAY diagnose the incident to determine the root cause. Some
diagnosis operations may affect the running network services. The
client can choose not to perform that diagnosis operation after
determining the impact is not trivial. The incident management
server can also perform self-diagnosis. However, the self-diagnosis
MUST not affect the running network services. Possible diagnosis
methods include link reachability detection, link quality detection,
alarm/log analysis, and short-term fine-grained monitoring of network
quality metrics, etc.
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
5.3. Incident Resolution
After the root cause is diagnosed, the client MAY resolve the
incident. The client MAY choose resolve the incident by invoking
other functions, such as routing calculation function, configuration
function, dispatching a ticket or asking the server to resolve it.
Generally, the client would attempt to directly resolve the root
cause. If the root cause cannot be resolved, an alternative solution
SHOULD be required. For example, if an incident caused by a physical
component failure, it cannot be automatically resolved, the standby
link can be used to bypass the faulty component.
Incident server will monitor the status of incident, if the faults
are fixed, the server will update the status of incident to
'cleared', and report the updated incident to the client.
Incident resolution may affect the running network services. The
client can choose not to perform those operations after determining
the impact is not trivial.
6. Incident Data Model Concepts
6.1. Identifying the Incident Instance
An incident ID is used as an identifier of an incident instance, if
an incident instance is identified, a new incident ID is created.
The incident ID MUST be unique in the whole system.
6.2. The Incident Lifecycle
6.2.1. Incident Instance Lifecycle
From an incident instance perspective, an incident can have the
following lifecycle: 'raised', 'updated', 'cleared'. When an
incident is generated, the status is 'raised'. If the status changes
after the incident is generated, (for example, self-diagnosis,
diagnosis command issued by the client, or any other condition causes
the status to change but does not reach the 'cleared' level.) , the
status changes to 'updated'. When an incident is successfully
resolved, the status changes to 'cleared'.
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
6.2.2. Operator Incident Lifecycle
From an operator perspective, the lifecycle of an incident instance
includes 'acknowledged', 'diagnosed', and 'resolved'. When an
incident instance is generated, the operator SHOULD acknowledge the
incident. And then the operator attempts to diagnose the incident
(for example, find out the root cause and affected components).
Diagnosis is not mandatory. If the root cause and affected
components are known when the incident is generated, diagnosis is not
required. After locating the root cause and affected components,
operator can try to resolve the incident.
7. Incident Data Model
7.1. Overview
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
module: ietf-incident
+--ro incidents
+--ro incident* [incident-id]
+--ro incident-id string
+--ro csn? uint64
+--ro service-instance* string
+--ro name? string
+--ro type? enumeration
+--ro domain? identityref
+--ro priority? int:incident-priority
+--ro status? enumeration
+--ro ack-status? enumeration
+--ro category? identityref
+--ro detail? string
+--ro resolve-advice? string
+--ro sources
...
+--ro root-causes
...
+--ro root-events
...
+--ro events
...
+--ro raise-time? yang:date-and-time
+--ro occur-time? yang:date-and-time
+--ro clear-time? yang:date-and-time
+--ro ack-time? yang:date-and-time
+--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time
rpcs:
+---x incident-acknowledge
...
+---x incident-diagnose
...
+---x incident-resolve
notifications:
+---n incident-notification
+--ro incident-id?
-> /inc:incidents/inc:incident/inc:incident-id
...
+--ro time? yang:date-and-time
7.2. Incident Notifications
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
notifications:
+---n incident-notification
+--ro incident-id?
-> /inc:incidents/inc:incident/inc:incident-id
+--ro csn? uint64
+--ro service-instance* string
+--ro name? string
+--ro type? enumeration
+--ro domain? identityref
+--ro priority? int:incident-priority
+--ro status? enumeration
+--ro ack-status? enumeration
+--ro category? identityref
+--ro detail? string
+--ro resolve-advice? string
+--ro sources
| +--ro source* [node]
| +--ro node -> /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/nw:node-id
| +--ro resource* [name]
| +--ro name al:resource
+--ro root-causes
| +--ro root-cause* [node]
| +--ro node -> /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/nw:node-id
| +--ro resource* [name]
| | +--ro name al:resource
| | +--ro cause-name? string
| | +--ro detail? string
| +--ro cause-name? string
| +--ro detail? string
+--ro root-events
| +--ro root-event* [type event-id]
| +--ro type -> ../../../events/event/type
| +--ro event-id leafref
+--ro events
| +--ro event* [type event-id]
| +--ro type enumeration
| +--ro event-id string
| +--ro (event-type-info)?
| +--:(alarm)
| | +--ro alarm
| | +--ro resource? leafref
| | +--ro alarm-type-id? leafref
| | +--ro alarm-type-qualifier? leafref
| +--:(notification)
| +--:(log)
| +--:(KPI)
| +--:(unknown)
+--ro time? yang:date-and-time
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
A general notification, incident-notification, is provided here.
When an incident instance is identified, the notification will be
sent. After a notification is generated, if the incident management
server performs self diagnosis or the client uses the interfaces
provided by the incident management server to deliver diagnosis and
resolution actions, the notification update behavior is triggered,
for example, the root cause objects and affected objects are updated.
When an incident is successfully resolved, the status of the incident
would be set to 'cleared'.
7.3. Incident Acknowledge
+---x incident-acknowledge
| +---w input
| | +---w incident-id*
| | -> /inc:incidents/inc:incident/inc:incident-id
After an incident is generated, updated, or cleared, (In some
scenarios where automatic diagnosis and resolution are supported, the
status of an incident may be updated multiple times or even
automatically resolved.) The operator needs to confirm the incident
to ensure that the client knows the incident.
The incident-acknowledge rpc can confirm multiple incidents at a time
7.4. Incident Diagnose
+---x incident-diagnose
| +---w input
| | +---w incident-id*
| | -> /inc:incidents/inc:incident/inc:incident-id
After an incident is generated, incident diagnose rpc can be used to
diagnose the incident and locate the root causes. Diagnosis can be
performed on some detection tasks, such as BFD detection, flow
detection, telemetry collection, short-term threshold alarm,
configuration error check, or test packet injection.
After the diagnosis is performed, a incident update notification will
be triggered to report the latest status of the incident.
7.5. Incident Resolution
+---x incident-resolve
+---w input
| +---w incident-id*
| -> /inc:incidents/inc:incident/inc:incident-id
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
After the root causes and impacts are determined, incident-resolve
rpc can be used to resolve the incident (if the server can resolve
it). How to resolve an incident instance is out of the scope of this
document.
Incident resolve rpc allows multiple incident instances to be
resolved at a time. If an incident instance is successfully
resolved, a notification will be triggered to update the incident
status to 'cleared'. If the incident content is changed during this
process, a notification update will be triggered.
8. Incident Management YANG Module
<CODE BEGINS>
file="ietf-incident-types@2023-05-16.yang"
module ietf-incident-types {
yang-version "1.1";
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-incident-types";
prefix "int";
import ietf-network {
prefix nw;
reference
"RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network Topologies";
}
organization
"IETF OPSAWG Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/>;
WG List: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Author: Chong Feng <mailto:frank.fengchong@huawei.com>
Author: Tong Hu <mailto:hutong@cmhi.chinamobile.com>
Author: Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo <mailto:
luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com>
Author : Thomas Graf <mailto:thomas.graf@swisscom.com>
Author : Qin Wu <mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>
Author: Chaode Yu <mailto:yuchaode@huawei.com>
Author: Nigel Davis <mailto:ndavis@ciena.com>";
description
"This module defines the identities and typedefs for
incident management.
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices. ";
revision 2023-05-16 {
description "initial version";
reference "RFC XXX: Yang module for incident management.";
}
//identities
identity incident-domain {
description "The abstract identity to indicate the domain of
an incident.";
}
identity single-domain {
base incident-domain;
description "single domain.";
}
identity access {
base single-domain;
description "access domain.";
}
identity ran {
base access;
description "radio access network domain.";
}
identity transport {
base single-domain;
description "transport domain.";
}
identity otn {
base transport;
description "optical transport network domain.";
}
identity ip {
base single-domain;
description "ip domain.";
}
identity ptn {
base ip;
description "packet transport network domain.";
}
identity cross-domain {
base incident-domain;
description "cross domain.";
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
}
identity incident-category {
description "The abstract identity for incident category.";
}
identity device {
base incident-category;
description "device category.";
}
identity power-enviorment {
base device;
description "power system category.";
}
identity device-hardware {
base device;
description "hardware of device category.";
}
identity device-software {
base device;
description "software of device category";
}
identity line {
base device-hardware;
description "line card category.";
}
identity maintenance {
base incident-category;
description "maintenance category.";
}
identity network {
base incident-category;
description "network category.";
}
identity protocol {
base incident-category;
description "protocol category.";
}
identity overlay {
base incident-category;
description "overlay category";
}
identity vm {
base incident-category;
description "vm category.";
}
//typedefs
typedef incident-priority {
type enumeration {
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
enum critical {
description "the incident MUST be handled immediately.";
}
enum high {
description "the incident should be handled as soon as
possible.";
}
enum medium {
description "network services are not affected, or the
services are slightly affected,but corrective
measures need to be taken.";
}
enum low {
description "potential or imminent service-affecting
incidents are detected,but services are
not affected currently.";
}
}
description "define the priority of incident.";
}
typedef node-ref {
type leafref {
path "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/nw:node-id";
}
description "reference a network node.";
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
<CODE BEGINS>
file="ietf-incident@2023-05-16.yang"
module ietf-incident {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-incident";
prefix inc;
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-alarms {
prefix al;
reference
"RFC 8632: A YANG Data Model for Alarm Management";
}
import ietf-incident-types {
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
prefix int;
reference
"draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management: Incident
Management for Network Services";
}
organization
"IETF OPSAWG Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/>;
WG List: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Author: Chong Feng <mailto:frank.fengchong@huawei.com>
Author: Tong Hu <mailto:hutong@cmhi.chinamobile.com>
Author: Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo <mailto:
luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com>
Author : Qin Wu <mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>
Author: Chaode Yu <mailto:yuchaode@huawei.com>
Author: Nigel Davis <mailto:ndavis@ciena.com>";
description
"This module defines the interfaces for incident management
lifecycle.
This module is intended for the following use cases:
* incident lifecycle management:
- incident report: report incident instance to client
when an incident instance is detected.
- incident acknowledge: acknowledge an incident instance.
- incident diagnose: diagnose an incident instance.
- incident resolve: resolve an incident instance.
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices. ";
revision 2023-05-16 {
description "remove identies and typedefs to independent yang
module. update some definitions of data model.";
reference "RFC XXX: Yang module for incident management.";
}
revision 2023-03-13 {
description "initial version";
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
reference "RFC XXX: Yang module for incident management.";
}
//groupings
grouping resources-info {
description "the grouping which defines the network
resources of a node.";
leaf node {
type int:node-ref;
description "reference to a network node.";
}
list resource {
key name;
description "the resources of a network node.";
leaf name {
type al:resource;
description "network resource name.";
}
}
}
grouping incident-time-info {
description "the grouping defines incident time information.";
leaf raise-time {
type yang:date-and-time;
description "the time when an incident instance is raised.";
}
leaf occur-time {
type yang:date-and-time;
description "the time when an incident instance is occured.
It's the occur time of the first event during
incident detection.";
}
leaf clear-time {
type yang:date-and-time;
description "the time when an incident instance is
resolved.";
}
leaf ack-time {
type yang:date-and-time;
description "the time when an incident instance is
acknowledged.";
}
leaf last-updated {
type yang:date-and-time;
description "the latest time when an incident instance is
updated";
}
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
}
grouping incident-info {
description "the grouping defines the information of an
incident.";
leaf csn {
type uint64;
mandatory true;
description "The sequence number of the incident instance.";
}
leaf-list service-instance {
type string;
description "the related network service instances of
the incident instance.";
}
leaf name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description "the name of an incident.";
}
leaf type {
type enumeration {
enum fault {
description "It indicates the type of the incident
is a fault, for example an interface
fails to work.";
}
enum potential-risk {
description "It indicates the type of the incident
is a potential risk, for example high
CPU rate may cause a fault in the
future.";
}
}
mandatory true;
description "The type of an incident.";
}
leaf domain {
type identityref {
base int:incident-domain;
}
mandatory true;
description "the domain of an incident.";
}
leaf priority {
type int:incident-priority;
mandatory true;
description "the priority of an incident instance.";
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
}
leaf status {
type enumeration {
enum raised {
description "an incident instance is raised.";
}
enum updated {
description "the information of an incident instance
is updated.";
}
enum cleared {
description "an incident is cleared.";
}
}
default raised;
description "The status of an incident instance.";
}
leaf ack-status {
type enumeration {
enum acknowledged {
description "The incident has been acknowledged by user.";
}
enum unacknowledged {
description "The incident hasn't been acknowledged.";
}
}
default unacknowledged;
description "the acknowledge status of an incident.";
}
leaf category {
type identityref {
base int:incident-category;
}
mandatory true;
description "The category of an incident.";
}
leaf detail {
type string;
description "detail information of this incident.";
}
leaf resolve-advice {
type string;
description "The advice to resolve this incident.";
}
container sources {
description "The source components.";
list source {
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
key node;
uses resources-info;
min-elements 1;
description "The source components of incident.";
}
}
container root-causes{
description "The root cause objects.";
list root-cause {
key node;
description "the root causes of incident.";
grouping root-cause-info {
description "The information of root cause.";
leaf cause-name {
type string;
description "the name of cause";
}
leaf detail {
type string;
description "the detail information of the cause.";
}
}
uses resources-info {
augment resource {
description "augment root cause information.";
//if root cause object is a resource of a node
uses root-cause-info;
}
}
//if root cause object is a node
uses root-cause-info;
}
}
container root-events {
description "the root events of the incident.";
list root-event {
key "type event-id";
description "the root event of the incident.";
leaf type {
type leafref {
path "../../../events/event/type";
}
description "the event type.";
}
leaf event-id {
type leafref {
path "../../../events/event[type = current()/../type]"
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
+"/event-id";
}
description "the event identifier, such as uuid,
sequence number, etc.";
}
}
}
container events {
description "related events.";
list event {
key "type event-id";
description "related events.";
leaf type {
type enumeration {
enum alarm {
description "alarm type";
}
enum inform {
description "inform type";
}
enum KPI {
description "KPI type";
}
enum unknown {
description "unknown type";
}
}
description "event type.";
}
leaf event-id {
type string;
description "the event identifier, such as uuid,
sequence number, etc.";
}
choice event-type-info {
description "event type information.";
case alarm {
when "type = 'alarm'";
container alarm {
description "alarm type event.";
leaf resource {
type leafref {
path "/al:alarms/al:alarm-list/al:alarm"
+"/al:resource";
}
description "network resource.";
reference "RFC 8632: A YANG Data Model for Alarm
Management";
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
}
leaf alarm-type-id {
type leafref {
path "/al:alarms/al:alarm-list/al:alarm"
+"[al:resource = current()/../resource]"
+"/al:alarm-type-id";
}
description "alarm type id";
reference "RFC 8632: A YANG Data Model for Alarm
Management";
}
leaf alarm-type-qualifier {
type leafref {
path "/al:alarms/al:alarm-list/al:alarm"
+"[al:resource = current()/../resource]"
+"[al:alarm-type-id = current()/.."
+"/alarm-type-id]/al:alarm-type-qualifier";
}
description "alarm type qualitifier";
reference "RFC 8632: A YANG Data Model for Alarm
Management";
}
}
}
case notification {
//TODO
}
case log {
//TODO
}
case KPI {
//TODO
}
case unknown {
//TODO
}
}
}
}
}
//data definitions
container incidents {
config false;
description "the information of incidents.";
list incident {
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
key incident-id;
description "the information of incident.";
leaf incident-id {
type string;
description "the identifier of an incident instance.";
}
uses incident-info;
uses incident-time-info;
}
}
// notifications
notification incident-notification {
description "incident notification. It will be triggered when
the incident is raised, updated or cleared.";
leaf incident-id {
type leafref {
path "/inc:incidents/inc:incident/inc:incident-id";
}
description "the identifier of an incident instance.";
}
uses incident-info;
leaf time {
type yang:date-and-time;
description "occur time of an incident instance.";
}
}
// rpcs
rpc incident-acknowledge {
description "This rpc can be used to acknowledge the specified
incidents.";
input {
leaf-list incident-id {
type leafref {
path "/inc:incidents/inc:incident/inc:incident-id";
}
description "the identifier of an incident instance.";
}
}
}
rpc incident-diagnose {
description "This rpc can be used to diagnose the specified
incidents. The result of diagnosis will be reported
by incident notification.";
input {
leaf-list incident-id {
type leafref {
path "/inc:incidents/inc:incident/inc:incident-id";
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
}
description
"the identifier of an incident instance.";
}
}
}
rpc incident-resolve {
description "This rpc can be used to resolve the specified
incidents. The result of resolution will be reported
by incident notification.";
input {
leaf-list incident-id {
type leafref {
path "/inc:incidents/inc:incident/inc:incident-id";
}
description
"the identifier of an incident instance.";
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. The "IETF XML" Registry
This document registers one XML namespace URN in the 'IETF XML
registry', following the format defined in [RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-incident
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URIs are XML namespaces.
9.2. The "YANG Module Names" Registry
This document registers one module name in the 'YANG Module Names'
registry, defined in [RFC6020].
name: ietf-incident
prefix: inc
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-incident
RFC: XXXX
// RFC Ed.: replace XXXX and remove this comment
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
10. Security Considerations
The YANG modules specified in this document define a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocol such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC8446].
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes
and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and data
nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
Some of the RPC operations in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control access to these operations. These are the
operations and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
11. Contributors
Aihua Guo
Futurewei Technologies
aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com
Zhidong Yin
Huawei
yinzhidong@huawei.com
Guoxiang Liu
Huawei
liuguoxiang@huawei.com
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
Kaichun Wu
Huawei
wukaichun@huawei.com
Yanlei Zheng
China Unicom
zhengyanlei@chinaunicom.cn
Yunbin Xu
CAICT
xuyunbin@caict.ac.cn
12. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mohamed Boucadair, Robert Wilton,
Benoit Claise, Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, Mahesh Jethanandani, Balazs
Lengyel, Bo Wu, Qiufang Ma, Haomian Zheng, YuanYao for their valuable
comments and great input to this work.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
13.2. Informative References
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture]
Claise, B., Quilbeuf, J., Lopez, D., Voyer, D., and T.
Arumugam, "Service Assurance for Intent-based Networking
Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-13, 3 January
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-13>.
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang]
Claise, B., Quilbeuf, J., Lucente, P., Fasano, P., and T.
Arumugam, "YANG Modules for Service Assurance", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-service-
assurance-yang-11, 3 January 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-
service-assurance-yang-11>.
[I-D.quilbeuf-opsawg-configuration-tracing]
Quilbeuf, J., Claise, B., Graf, T., Lopez, D., and Q. Sun,
"External Transaction ID for Configuration Tracing", 13
March 2023, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
quilbeuf-opsawg-configuration-tracing-01.html>.
[I-D.rogaglia-netconf-trace-ctx-extension]
Gagliano, R., Larsson, K., and J. Lindblad, "NETCONF
Extension to support Trace Context propagation", 13 March
2023, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rogaglia-
netconf-trace-ctx-extension-02.html>.
[I-D.tgraf-yang-push-observation-time]
Graf, T., Claise, B., and A. Huang Feng, "Support of
Network Observation Timestamping in YANG Notifications", 6
March 2023, <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-tgraf-yang-
push-observation-time-00.html>.
[RFC8345] Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for
Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC8345, March
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8345>.
[RFC8632] Vallin, S. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for Alarm
Management", RFC 8632, DOI 10.17487/RFC8632, September
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8632>.
[RFC8969] Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and
L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network
Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10.17487/RFC8969,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8969>.
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
[RFC9375] Wu, B., Ed., Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Gonzalez de
Dios, O., and B. Wen, "A YANG Data Model for Network and
VPN Service Performance Monitoring", RFC 9375,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9375, April 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9375>.
[W3C-Trace-Context]
W3C, "W3C Recommendation on Trace Context", 23 November
2021, <https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/REC-trace-context-
1-20211123/>.
Appendix A. Changes between revisions
[[RFC editor: please remove this section before publication.]]
v00 - v01
* Modify the introduction.
* Rename incident agent to incident server.
* Add the interworking with alarm management.
* Add the interworking with SAIN.
* Add the relationship with RFC8969.
* Add the relationship with observation timestamp and trace context.
* Clarify the incident identification process.
* Modify the work flow of incident diagnosis and resolution.
* Remove identities and typedefs from ietf-incident YANG module, and
create a new YANG module called ietf-incident-types.
* Modify ietf-incident YANG module, for example, modify incident-
diagnose rpc and incident-resolve rpc.
Authors' Addresses
Chong Feng (editor)
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing
Jiangsu, 210012
China
Email: frank.fengchong@huawei.com
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Incident Management July 2023
Tong Hu
China Mobile (Hangzhou) Information Technology Co., Ltd
Building A01, 1600 Yuhangtang Road, Wuchang Street, Yuhang District
Hangzhou
ZheJiang, 311121
China
Email: hutong@cmhi.chinamobile.com
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Telefonica I+D
Madrid
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Binzring 17
CH-8045 Zurich
Switzerland
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing
Jiangsu, 210012
China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Chaode Yu
Huawei
Email: yuchaode@huawei.com
Nigel Davis
Ciena
Email: ndavis@ciena.com
Feng, et al. Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 38]