Information Model for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)
draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model-10

[Ballot comment]
The document does not really specify what a , or , or  actually is... are those elements identified by IP addresses or something else, or does that not really matter?

[Ballot comment]
I echo the comments questioning the archival value for publishing a document like this.
I think it's a good intermediate point to have, including the security considerations text
(thank you for the quick update after the secdir review!), but am unsure what portion(s)
of it could not be easily folded into successor documents.

Section 2

  This section provides an ACTN common interface information model to
  describe in terms of primitives, objects, their properties
  (represented as attributes), their relationships, and the resources
  for the service applications needed in the ACTN context.

nit: The grammar here is a bit odd -- as-is, it says we have a model "to
describe in terms of [a list of things]", but don't say what is being
described.  I'm not entirely sure what the intended text would be, though.

Section 3.2, 3.4

Do I understand correctly that Modify is for CNC-to-MDSC commmunication and
Update is for MDSC-to-CNC communication?  Perhaps this could be made more
explicit.

Section 5.7.2

      [...] For example, permission
      the correct selection from the network of the destination related
      to the indicated VNF It is e.g. the case of VM migration among
      data center and CNC can enforce specific policy that can permit
      MDSC/PNC to calculate the correct path for the connectivity
      supporting the data center interconnection required by
      application.

There seems to be an editing error around "indicated VNF It is e.g.", maybe
just a missing full stop and commas around "e.g."?

Section 9

  The ACTN information model does not directly introduce security
  issues. Rather, it defines a set of interfaces for traffic

I would hope that no product of the IETF directly introduces security
*issues* (problems)!  Maybe "is not directly relevant when considering
potential security issues" is some better wordsmithing.

  Implementations of the ACTN framework will have distributed
  functional components that will exchange this information model.

nit: Perhaps this is overly pedantic, but are they exchanging this
information model, or a concrete instantiation that adheres to this model?

[Ballot comment]
What is the goal of publishing this as an RFC? It seems like an intermediate document that doesn't have archival value. I do not find publication of an information model mentioned on the TEAS charter, but maybe I missed it.

§9: There are three upper-case SHOULDs in this section, but no RFC 8174 or 2119 boilerplate. Normative keywords don't really seem appropriate for an information model, so perhaps they should be lower case?

[Ballot comment]
This document "covers the requirements identified in" draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements, which is used as a Normative reference, but it looks like it won't be published after all [1].  The framework document (draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework) does not depend normatively on the requirements; it seems like it should be possible for this document to not depend on them either.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Ep3z1YP2QV8JkgDHK3Zuw0V6Nq0

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-06-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, Vishnu Beeram , teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Information Model for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Information Model
for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-06-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This draft provides an information model for Abstraction and Control
  of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN).






The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Informational.

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

This is an information model document. It provides an information model
for Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN).

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

>
> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>
> Technical Summary
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.

  This draft provides an information model for Abstraction and Control
  of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN).

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

This is part of the initial set of ACTN documents worked on by the
WG. There was some debate prior to WG adoption on whether this
needs to be a temporary document (just remain active till the corresponding
data models are put together) or not. There was consensus to take it through
to the publication process.


>
> 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?


This document has been discussed and reviewed thoroughly by the WG.
While there have been no official statements on the adoption and
implementation of this information model, the authors are from
multiple vendors, and implementation is expected.


> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Vishnu Pavan Beeram

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

>
> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
> the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document as part of normal WG progress
and WG last call. The Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication.

>
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No.

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization?

No.

> If so, describe the review that took place.

N/A.

>
> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.

No specific concerns.

>
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes, see thread
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/5pExDe81muZxNjI7M4hZenpVmbo

>
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

No IPR disclosed.

> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Solid among those who are interested. “Strong concurrence of a fair number
of individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.

> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No extreme discontent seen.

>
> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

The document passes ID nits.

>
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?

Yes.

> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
> references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
> If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
> the Last Call procedure.

No.

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
> listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
> part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
> other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
> explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
> document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
> Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
> identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
> detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
> allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
> reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd and is
appropriate (no actions for IANA) for this draft.

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
> useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A