Skip to main content

SIMAP: Concept, Requirements, and Use Cases
draft-ietf-nmop-simap-concept-14

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-nmop-simap-concept@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, nmop-chairs@ietf.org, nmop@ietf.org, reshad@yahoo.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Document Action: 'SIMAP: Concept, Requirements, and Use Cases' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-nmop-simap-concept-13.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'SIMAP: Concept, Requirements, and Use Cases'
  (draft-ietf-nmop-simap-concept-13.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Network Management Operations Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nmop-simap-concept/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document defines the concept of Service & Infrastructure Maps
   (SIMAP) and identifies a set of SIMAP requirements and use cases.
   The SIMAP was previously known as Digital Map. SIMAP evolves the
   earlier 'Digital Map' concept by making explicit the ties between
   service and infrastructure layers, clarifying expected outcomes for
   operations and automation, and addressing ambiguity associated with
   the term 'digital.'

   The document intends to be used as a reference for the assessment of
   the various topology modules to meet SIMAP requirements.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

From Shepherd Report:

No controversy. There was a lot of feedback/suggestions, especially during WGLC.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

From Shepherd Report:

N/A.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Reshad Rahman. The
   Responsible Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note