Some Key Terms for Network Fault and Problem Management
draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-18

Network Working Group                                      N. Davis, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Ciena
Intended status: Informational                            A. Farrel, Ed.
Expires: 20 December 2025                             Old Dog Consulting
                                                                 T. Graf
                                                                Swisscom
                                                                   Q. Wu
                                                                  Huawei
                                                                   C. Yu
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                            18 June 2025

        Some Key Terms for Network Fault and Problem Management
                     draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-18

Abstract

   This document sets out some terms that are fundamental to a common
   understanding of network fault and problem management within the
   IETF.

   The purpose of this document is to bring clarity to discussions and
   other work related to network fault and problem management, in
   particular to YANG models and management protocols that report, make
   visible, or manage network faults and problems.

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 20 December 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Usage of Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Context Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Core Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Other Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Workflow Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   Successful operation of large or busy networks depends on effective
   network management.  This requires a virtuous circle of network
   control, network observability, network analytics, network assurance,
   and back to network control.  Network fault and problem management
   [RFC6632] is an important aspect of network management and control
   solutions.  It deals with the detection, reporting, inspection,
   isolation, correlation, and management of events within the network.
   The intention of this document is to focus on those events that have
   a negative effect on the network's ability to forward traffic
   according to expected behavior and so deliver services.  Fault and
   problem management extends to include actions taken to determine the
   causes of problems and to work toward recovery of expected network
   behavior.

   A number of work efforts within the IETF seek to provide components
   of a fault management system, such as YANG models or management
   protocols.  It is important that a common terminology is used so that
   there is a clear understanding of how the elements of the management
   and control solutions fit together, and how faults and problems will
   be handled.

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

   This document sets out some terms that are fundamental to a common
   understanding of network fault and problem management.  While
   "faults" and "problems" are concepts that apply at all levels of
   technology in the Internet, the scope of this document is restricted
   to the network layer and below, hence this document is specifically
   about "network fault and problem management."  The concept of
   "incidents" is also touched on in this document, where an incident
   results from one or more problems and is the disruption of a network
   service.

   Note that some useful terms are defined in [RFC3877] and [RFC8632].
   The definitions in this document are informed by those documents, but
   they are not dependent on that prior work.

2.  Usage of Terms

   The terms defined in this document are principally intended for
   consistent use within the IETF.  Where similar concepts are described
   in other bodies, an attempt has been made to harmonize with those
   other descriptions, but there is care needed where terms are not used
   consistently between bodies or where terms are applied outside the
   network layer.  If other bodies find the terminology defined in this
   document useful, they are free to use it.

   The purpose of this document is to define the following terms for use
   in other documents.  Other terms are defined to enable those
   definitions and may also be used by other documents, although that is
   not the principal purpose of their definitions here.

   *  Event
   *  State
   *  Fault
   *  Problem
   *  Symptom
   *  Cause
   *  Alert
   *  Alarm

   When other documents make use of the terms as defined in this
   document, it is suggested here that such uses should use
   capitalization of the terms as in this document to help distinguish
   them from colloquial uses, and should include an early section
   listing the terms inherited from this document with a citation.

3.  Terminology

   This section contains key terms.  It is split into three subsections.

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

   *  Section 3.1 contains terms that help to set the context for
      network fault and problem management systems.

   *  Section 3.2 includes specific and detailed core terms that will be
      used in other documents that describe elements of the network
      fault and problem management systems.

   *  Section 3.3 provides three further terms that may be helpful.

3.1.  Context Terminology

   This section includes some terminology that helps describe the
   context for the rest of this work.  The terms may be viewed as a
   cascaded sequence of processes, starting with Network Telemetry and
   building to Network Observability.  The definitions are deliberately
   kept relatively terse.  Further documents may expand on these terms
   without loss of specificity.  Such contextualization (if any) should
   be highlighted clearly in those documents.

   Network Telemetry:  This is defined in [RFC9232] and describes the
      process of collecting operational network data categorized
      according to the network plane (e.g., layer 3, layer 2, layer 1)
      from which it was derived.  Data collected through the Network
      Telemetry process does not contain any data related to service
      definitions (i.e., "intent" per Section 3.1 of [RFC9315]).

   Network Monitoring:  This is the process of keeping a continuous
      record of functions related to a network topology.  It involves
      tracking various aspects such as traffic patterns, device health,
      performance metrics, and overall network behaviour.  This approach
      differentiates network monitoring from resource or device
      monitoring, which focuses on individual components or resources
      (Section 3.2).

   Network Analytics:  Network Analytics is the process of deriving
      analytical insights from operational network data.  A process
      could be a piece of software, a system, or a human that analyzes
      operational data and outputs new analytical data related to the
      operational data, for example, a symptom.

   Network Observability:  The Network Observability process is the

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

      enablement of network behavioral assessment through analysis of
      observed operational network data (logs, alarms, traces, etc.)
      with the aim of detecting symptoms of network behavior, and to
      identify anomalies and their causes.  Network Observability begins
      with information gathered using Network Monitoring tools and that
      may be further enriched with other operational data.  The expected
      outcome of the observability processes is identification and
      analysis of deviations in observed state versus the expected state
      of a network.

   Thus, there is a cascaded sequence where the following relationships
   apply.

   *  Network Telemetry is the process of collecting operational data
      from a network.

   *  Network Monitoring is the process of creating/keeping a record of
      data gathered in Network Telemetry.

   *  Network Analytics is the process of deriving insight through the
      data recorded in Network Monitoring.

   *  Network Observability is the process of enabling behavioral
      assessment of a network through Network Analytics.

3.2.  Core Terms

   The terms are presented below in an order that is intended to flow
   such that it is possible to gain understanding reading top to bottom.
   The figures and explanations in Section 4 may aid understanding the
   terms set out here.

   Resource:  An element of a network system.

      Resource is a recursive concept so that a Resource may be a
      collection of other Resources (for example, a network node
      comprises a collection of network interfaces).

   Characteristic:  Observable or measurable aspect or behavior
      associated with a Resource.

      *  A Characteristic may be considered to be built on facts (see
         'Value', below) and the contexts and descriptors that identify
         and give meaning to the facts.

      *  The term "Metric" [RFC9417] is another word for a measurable
         Characteristic which may also be thought of as analogous to a
         'variable'.

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

   Value:  A Value is a measure of a Characteristic associated with a
      Resource.  It may be in the form of a categorization (e.g., high
      or low), an integer (e.g., a count or gauge), or a reading of a
      continuous variable (e.g., an analog measurement), etc.

   Change:  In the context of Network Monitoring, a Change is the
      variation in the Value of a Characteristic associated with a
      Resource and may arise over a period of time.

      *  Not all Changes are noteworthy (i.e., they do not have
         Relevance).

      *  Perception of Change depends upon Detection, the sampling
         rate/accuracy/detail, and perspective.

      *  It may be helpful to qualify this as "Value Change" because the
         English word "change" is often heavily used.

   Event:  The variation in Value of a Characteristic of a Resource at a
      distinct moment in time (i.e., the period is negligible).

      *  Compared with a Change, which may be over a period of time, an
         Event happens at a distinct moment in time.  Thus, an Event may
         be the observation of a Change.

   Condition:  A Condition is an interpretation of the Values of a set
      of one or more Characteristics of a Resource (with respect to
      working order or some other aspect relevant to the Resource
      purpose/application), for example "low available memory".  Thus,
      it is the output of a function applied to a set of one or more
      variables.

   State:  A particular Condition that a Resource has (i.e., it is in a
      State) at a specific time.  For example, a router may report the
      total amount of memory it has, and how much is free.  These are
      the Values of two Characteristics of a Resource.  These Values can
      be interpreted to determine the Condition of the Resource, and
      that may determine the State of the router, such as shortage of
      memory.

      *  While a State may be observed at a specific moment in time, it
         is actually determined by summarizing measurement over time in
         a process sometimes called State compression.

      *  It may be helpful to qualify this as "Resource State" to make
         clear the distinction between this and other uses of "state"
         such as "protocol state".

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

      *  This term may be contrasted with "Operational State" as used in
         [RFC8342].  For example, the state of a link might be up/down/
         degraded, but the operational state of link would include a
         collection of Values of Characteristics of the link.

   Detect (hence Detected, Detection):  To notice the presence of
      something (State, Change, Event, activity, etc.).

      *  Hence also to notice a Change (from the perspective of an
         observer such as a monitoring system).

   Relevance:  Consideration of an Event, State, or Value (through the
      application of policy, relative to a specific perspective, intent,
      and in relation to other Events, States, and Values) to determine
      whether it is of note to the system that controls or manages the
      network.  Note, for example, that not all Changes are Relevant.

      *  This term may also be used as "Relevant Event", "Relevant
         State", or "Relevant Value".

   Occurrence:  A Relevant Event or a particular Relevant Change.

      *  An Occurrence may be an aggregation or abstraction of multiple
         fine-grain Events or Changes.

      *  An Occurrence may occur at any macro or micro scale because
         Resources are a recursive concept, and may be perceived
         depending on the scope of observation (i.e., according to the
         level of Resource recursion that is examined).  That is,
         Occurrences, themselves a recursive concept.

   Fault:  An Occurrence (i.e., an Event or a Change) that is not
      desired/required (as it may be indicative of a current or future
      undesired State).  Thus, a Fault happens at a moment in time.  A
      Fault can potentially be associated with a Cause.  See [RFC8632]
      for a more detailed discussion of network faults.

      *  Note that there is a distinction between a Fault and a Problem
         that depends on context.  For example, in a connectivity
         service where redundancy is present, a link down is a Problem,
         but from the perspective of managing the network resources, a
         link down is a Fault.  Likewise, for example, in a router with
         two power supplies, if the backup power supply fails, this is a
         Problem.

   Problem:  A State that is undesirable and that may require remedial

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

      action.  A Problem cannot necessarily be associated with a Cause.
      The resolution of a Problem does not necessarily act on the thing
      that has the Problem.

      *  Note that there is a historic aspect to the concept of a
         Problem.  The current State may be operational, but there could
         have been a Fault that is unexplained, and the fact of that
         unexplained recent Fault is a Problem.

      *  Note that while a Problem is unresolved it may continue to
         require attention.  A record of resolved Problems may be
         maintained in a log.

      *  Note that there may be a State which is considered to be a
         Problem from several perspectives.  For example, consider a
         "loss of light" State that may cause multiple services to fail.
         In this example, a new State (the light recovers) may cause the
         Problem to be resolved from one perspective (the services are
         operational once more), but may leave the Problem as unresolved
         (because the loss of light has not been explained).  Further,
         in this example, there could be another development (the reason
         for the temporary loss of light is traced to a microbend in the
         fiber that is repaired) resulting in that unresolved Problem
         now being resolved.  But, in this example, this still leaves a
         further Problem unresolved (a microbend occurred, and that
         Problem is not resolved until it is understood how it occurred
         and a remedy is put in place to prevent recurrence).

   Cause:  The Events (Detected or otherwise) that gave rise to a Fault/
      Problem.

   Incident:  A (Network) Incident is an undesired Occurrence such as an
      unexpected interruption of a network service, degradation of the
      quality of a network service, or the below-target performance of a
      network service.  An Incident results from one or more Problems,
      and a Problem may give rise to or contribute to one or more
      Incidents.  Greater discussion of Network Incident relationships,
      including Customer Incidents and Incident management, can be found
      in [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang].

   Symptom:  An observable Value, State, Event, or Condition considered
      as an indication of a Problem or potential Problem.

   Anomaly:  A (Network) Anomaly is an unusual or unexpected Event or
      pattern in network data in the forwarding plane, control plane, or
      management plane that deviates from the normal, expected behavior.
      See [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-anomaly-architecture] for more details.

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

   Alert:  An indication of a Fault.

   Alarm:  As specified in [RFC8632], an Alarm signifies an undesirable
      State in a Resource that requires corrective action.  From a
      management point of view, an Alarm can be seen as a State in its
      own right and the transition to this State may result in an Alert
      being issued.  The receipt of this Alert may give rise to a
      continuous indication (to a human operator) highlighting the
      potential or actual presence of a Problem.

3.3.  Other Terms

   Three other terms may be helpful:

   Intermittent:  A State that is not continuous, but keeps occurring in
      some time frame.

   Transient:  A State that is not continuous, and occurs once in some
      time frame.

   Recurrent:  A Problem that is actively resolved, but reoccurs.

4.  Workflow Explanations

   This section aims to add information about the relationship between
   the terms defined in Section 3.2.  The text and figures here are for
   explanation and are not normative for the definition of terms.

   The relationship between Resources and Characteristics is shown in
   Figure 1.  Note that there is a 1:n relationship between Network
   system and Resources, and between Resources and Characteristics: this
   is not shown on the figure for clarity.

                                  Characteristics
                                         ^
                                         |
                                      Resources
                                         ^
                                         |
                                  Network system

                  Figure 1: Resources and Characteristics

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

   The Value of a Characteristic of a Resource may change over time.
   Specific Changes in Value may be noticed at a specific time (as
   digital Changes), Detected, and treated as Events.  This is shown on
   the left of Figure 2.

   The center of Figure 2 shows how the Value of a Characteristic may
   change over time.  The Value may be Detected at specific times or
   periodically and give rise to States (and consequently State
   Changes).

   In practice, the Characteristic may vary in an analog manner over
   time as shown on the right-hand side of Figure 2.  The Value can be
   read or reported (i.e., Detected) periodically leading to analog
   Values that may be deemed Relevant Values, or may be evaluated over
   time as shown in Figure 6.

              Event                State                  Value

                ^                    ^                      ^
         Detect :             Detect :               Detect :
                :                    :                      :

           ^        ^          ^     ^     ^                   /\
           :        :          :     :     :                  /  \
           :        :          :     :     :             /\  /    \
            __    __               _____                /  \/
           |        |             |     |            /\/
         __|        |__       ____|     |____       /

        Change at a time     Change over time      Change over time

                   Figure 2: Characteristics and Changes

   Figure 3 shows the workflow progress for Events.  As noted above, an
   Event is a Change in the Value of a Characteristic at a time.  The
   Event may be evaluated (considering policy, relative to a specific
   perspective, with a view to intent, and in relation to other Events,
   States, and Values) to determine if it is an Occurrence and possibly
   to indicate a Change of State.  An Occurrence may be undesirable (a
   Fault) and that can cause an Alert to be generated, may be evidence
   of a Problem and could directly indicate a Cause.  In some cases, an
   Alert may give rise to an Alarm highlighting the potential or actual
   presence of a Problem.

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

                              Alert - - - > Alarm
                                ^
                                |
                                |     -----> Cause
                                |    |
                                |----------> Problem
                                |
                                |
                              Fault
                                ^
                                |
                                |
                                |
                            Occurrence
                                ^
                                |
                                |----------> State
                                |
                                |
                              Event

                    Figure 3: Event and Dependent Terms

   Parallel to the workflow for Events, Figure 4 shows the workflow
   progress for States.  As shown in Figure 2, Change noted at a
   particular time gives rise to State.  The State may be deemed to have
   Relevance considering policy, relative to a specific perspective,
   with a view to intent, and in relation to other Events, States, and
   Values.  A Relevant State may be deemed a Problem, or may indicate a
   Problem or potential Problem.

   Problems may be considered based on Symptoms and may map directly or
   indirectly to Causes.  An Incident results from one or more Problems.
   An Alarm may be raised as the result of a Problem, and the transition
   to an Alarmed state may give rise to an Alert.

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

                             Alarm - - -> Alert
                               ^
                               |     ------> Incident
                               |    |
                               |    |   ---> Cause
                               |    |  |
                           Problem---------> Symptom
                               ^
                               |
                               | Relevance
                               |
                               |
                             State

                    Figure 4: State and Dependent Terms

   Figure 5 shows how Faults and Problems may be consolidated to
   determine the Causes.  The arrows show how one item may give rise to
   another.

   A Cause can be indicated by or determined from Faults, Problems, and
   Symptoms.  It may be that one Cause points to another, and can also
   be considered as a Symptom.  The determination of Causes can consider
   multiple inputs.  An Incident results from one or more Problems.

                                          ---------
                           ------------- |         |
                          |  ----------> | Symptom |
                          | |            |         |
                          | |             ---------
                          v |                 ^
                       ---------              |
              ------->|  Cause  |<---------   |
             |         ---------           |  |
             |           ^   |             |  |
             |           |   |             |  |
             |            ---              |  |
             |                             |  |
         ---------                      ---------          ----------
        |  Fault  |------------------->| Problem |------->| Incident |
         ---------                      ---------          ----------

               Figure 5: Consolidation of Symptoms and Causes

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

   Figure 6 shows how thresholds are important in the consideration of
   analog Values and Events.  The arrows in the figure show how one item
   may give rise to or utilize another.  The use of threshold-driven
   Events and States (and the Alerts that they might give rise to) must
   be treated with caution to dampen any "flapping" (so that consistent
   States may be observed) and to avoid overwhelming management
   processes or systems.  Analog Values may be read or notified from the
   Resource and could transition a threshold, be deemed Relevant Values,
   or evaluated over time.  Events may be counted, and the Count may
   cross a threshold or reach a Relevant Value.

   The Threshold Process may be implementation-specific and subject to
   policies.  When a threshold is crossed and any other conditions are
   matched, an Event may be determined, and treated like any other
   Event.

    Occurrence
         ^
         |
         |---------------------> State
         |
         |        -------                  Relevance
         |------>| Count |-----------------------------> Value
         |        -------          |                       ^
         |           |             |                       |
         |           |             |                       | Relevance
         |           |             v                       |
         |           |        -----------           ----------------
       Event         |       | Evaluated |         |                |
         ^           |       | over time |<--------|  Analog Value  |
         |           v        -----------          |                |
         |      -----------        |               |                |
         |     | Threshold |       |               |                |
         |<----|  Process  |<------                |                |
         |     |           |<----------------------|                |
         |      -----------                         ----------------
         |                                                 ^
         |                                                 |
         | Detect                                   Detect |
         |                                                 |
    Change at a Time                                Change over Time

                  Figure 6: Counts, Thresholds, and Values

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

5.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies terminology and has no direct effect on the
   security of implementations or deployments.  However, protocol
   solutions and management models need to be aware of several aspects:

   *  The exposure of information pertaining to Faults and Problems may
      make available knowledge of the internal workings of a network (in
      particular its vulnerabilities) that may be of use to an attacker.

   *  Systems that generate management information (messages,
      notifications, etc.) when Faults occur, may be attacked by causing
      them to generate so much information that the system that manages
      the network is swamped and unable to properly manage the network.

   *  Reporting false information about Faults (or masking reports of
      Faults) may cause the system that manages the network to function
      incorrectly.

6.  Privacy Considerations

   In general, network fault and problem management should not expose
   information about end-user activities or user data.  The main privacy
   concern is for a network operator to keep control of all information
   about Faults to protect their privacy and the details of how the
   network operators operate their network.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests for IANA action.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Med Boucadair, Wanting Du, Joe
   Clarke, Javier Antich, Benoit Claise, Christopher Janz, Sherif
   Mostafa, Kristian Larsson, Dirk Hugo, Carsten Bormann, Hilarie Orman,
   Stewart Bryant, Bo Wu, Paul Kyzivat, Jouni Korhonen, Reshad Rahman,
   Rob Wilton, Mahesh Jethanandani, and Tim Bray for their helpful
   comments.

   Special thanks to the team that met at a side meeting at IETF-120 to
   discuss some of the thorny issues:

   *  Benoit Claise
   *  Watson Ladd
   *  Brad Peters
   *  Bo Wu
   *  Georgios Karagiannis

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

   *  Olga Havel
   *  Vincenzo Riccobene
   *  Yi Lin
   *  Jie Dong
   *  Aihua Guo
   *  Thomas Graf
   *  Qin Wu
   *  Chaode Yu
   *  Adrian Farrel

Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-anomaly-architecture]
              Graf, T., Du, W., Francois, P., and A. H. Feng, "A
              Framework for a Network Anomaly Detection Architecture",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-nmop-network-
              anomaly-architecture-03, 8 May 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nmop-
              network-anomaly-architecture-03>.

   [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang]
              Hu, T., Contreras, L. M., Wu, Q., Davis, N., and C. Feng,
              "A YANG Data Model for Network Incident Management", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-nmop-network-
              incident-yang-04, 14 June 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nmop-
              network-incident-yang-04>.

   [RFC3877]  Chisholm, S. and D. Romascanu, "Alarm Management
              Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, DOI 10.17487/RFC3877,
              September 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3877>.

   [RFC6632]  Ersue, M., Ed. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF
              Network Management Standards", RFC 6632,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6632, June 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6632>.

   [RFC8342]  Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
              and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
              (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.

   [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>.

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

   [RFC9232]  Song, H., Qin, F., Martinez-Julia, P., Ciavaglia, L., and
              A. Wang, "Network Telemetry Framework", RFC 9232,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9232, May 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9232>.

   [RFC9315]  Clemm, A., Ciavaglia, L., Granville, L. Z., and J.
              Tantsura, "Intent-Based Networking - Concepts and
              Definitions", RFC 9315, DOI 10.17487/RFC9315, October
              2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9315>.

   [RFC9417]  Claise, B., Quilbeuf, J., Lopez, D., Voyer, D., and T.
              Arumugam, "Service Assurance for Intent-Based Networking
              Architecture", RFC 9417, DOI 10.17487/RFC9417, July 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9417>.

Authors' Addresses

   Nigel Davis (editor)
   Ciena
   United Kingdom
   Email: ndavis@ciena.com

   Adrian Farrel (editor)
   Old Dog Consulting
   United Kingdom
   Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk

   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 Technologies

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft          Network Fault Terminology              June 2025

   Email: yuchaode@huawei.com

Davis, et al.           Expires 20 December 2025               [Page 17]