A Framework for Management and Control of Microwave and Millimeter Wave Interface Parameters
RFC 8432

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The unification of control and management of microwave radio link interfaces is a precondition for seamless multi-layer networking and automated network provisioning and operation.

This document describes the required characteristics and use cases for control and management of radio link interface parameters using a YANG data model.

The purpose is to create a framework to identify the necessary information elements and define a YANG data model for control and management of the radio link interfaces in a microwave node. Some parts of the resulting model may be generic and could also be used by other technologies, e.g., Ethernet technology.')

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8432, changed title to 'A Framework for Management and Control of Microwave and Millimeter Wave Interface Parameters', changed abstract to 'The unification of control and management of microwave radio link interfaces is a precondition for seamless multi-layer networking and automated network provisioning and operation.', changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2018-10-19, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Mirja and others that I don't see the need for this to be published in a stand-alone RFC, but I won't stand in the way of its publication.

Ben listed most of the nits that I saw. I also think the last paragraph of Section 6.3 is superfluous and need not be included in the archival version.

[Ballot comment]
I appreciate all the work that went into creating this requirements document.

I agree with the several other comments regarding the archival value of this
document. Generally, I don't object to the publication of support documents
that were established by a working group charter prior to the publication of
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/support-documents-in-ietf-wgs.html
or those that were explicitly discussed as part of a chartering/rechartering.
I cannot find mention of a framework and/or requirements document for and
millimeter wave interfaces in the CCAMP charter. I concur with the suggestions
to use some other means (e.g., a wiki) to provide easy access to this
information while the corresponding YANG work is performed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract:

Please expand the acronym "ETH".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3:

>  It's noted that
>  there's idea that the NMS and SDN are evolving towards a component,
>  and the distinction between them is quite vague.

Nit: "...there's an idea..."
                ^^

[Ballot comment]
I agree with other comments that this document doesn't seem to need to be an RFC. It seems like, once the YANG model is complete, the content here will no longer be needed. It would be better documented outside of the RFC series (for example, in a wiki or left as an internet-draft). I further note that this document doesn't seem to be in the WG charter, but it's entirely possible I missed something.

Otherwise, I have some mostly editorial comments. In general, I think this could use more proofreading prior to publication.

§1.1
- 2nd paragraph: This contradicts the boilerplate that says these terms are used as defined in 8174 and 2119. I don't think using the terms in this way adds clarity to the document. In fact, I think it reduces clarity in some cases; e.g. the difference of SHOULD vs MUST clearly isn't as described in 2119, so it's not clear how SHOULD should be interpreted when designing the YANG model.  For example, should SHOULD items be interpreted as "desirable but not required"?

- 3rd paragraph: The paragraph gives an incorrect interpretation of the meaning of "normative references" The lack of protocol definition does not suggest that there should be no normative references. I suggest simply deleting the paragraph.

§3, last paragraph:
-  " It’s noted that there’s idea that the NMS and SDN are evolving towards a component, and the distinction between them is quite vague. "
I don't understand that sentence. Are there missing words?
- Please consider defining the operative difference between "management" and "control" plan in the context of this discussion, especially given the previous comment that the distinction between NMS and SDN is vague.

§3.2:
- 4th paragraph: s/potential/potentially
- Last paragraph: "Effort on a standardizing operation mode is required to implement a smoothly operator environment."
I don't understand that sentence. Are there missing or incorrect words?

§4.11 and following sections: Many of these sections start out with a sentence fragment for the use case description  That would be reasonable in a table or list of cases, but is jarring to read in paragraph form.

§4.1.2, first paragraph: The normative "MAY" seems wrong in context. I think it's a statement of fact, not a grant of permission. (In general, I don't see how normative keywords make sense in use cases like these.)

§4.1.4: "Radio link terminals comprising a group of carriers ..."
I don't think the terminals comprise carriers per se. Perhaps they are shared by a group of carriers, or provide access for a group of carriers?

§4.4.1: The text is convoluted. Please consider simplifying it. Active voice might help.

§4.5.2:
- I don't understand what "should be supported accordingly" means in context. Please describe how they should be supported.
- The last sentence seems like a non sequitur, given that the last sentence explicitly said that these items were _not_ specific to a particular radio link interface.

§6,
- "The purpose of the gap analysis is to identify and recommend what
  existing and established models as well as draft models under
  definition to support the use cases and requirements specified in the
  previous chapters. "
I don't understand the wording after "as well".
The antecedent of "It" is unclear in the second sentence.

§6.1: Please proofread this section for missing articles and ambiguous pronoun antecedents.
"IM is to model managed objects at a conceptual
  level for designers and operators, DM is defined at a lower level and
  includes many details for implementers."  - comma splice

- " To ensure better interoperability, it is better to
  focus on DM directly."
That sentence needs to be contextualized. It's not globally true.

- paragraph starting with "[RFC8343] describes..." Please clarify whether the mentioned models are IMs or DMs.

-7: "Security issue concerning the access control to Management interfaces
  can be generally addressed..."
Please describe what those issues are. The security consideration section should discuss protections in the context of the threats that they mitigate. For example, what would be the consequences of violations of origin authentication, integrity protection, or confidentiality?

§9.2: At least [I-D.ietf-ccamp-mw-yang] should be normative.

[Ballot comment]
Hello,

this document is well written and very clear. Thank you.

In Section 1.1 you write:
  This document does not define any protocol extension, hence only
  [RFC2119] [RFC8174] can be considered as a normative reference.
  However, the list of normative references includes a number of
  documents that can be useful for a better understanding of the
  context.
I would then suggest to keep only these two refs as Normative ones and move all the other as Informative, the purpose of which is just to list documents "that can be useful for a better understanding of the context"

[Ballot comment]
I have a similar sentiment to Mirja, in that this document seems to
be describing the result of WG deliberations and the conclusions
that have been reached as to the path for future work.  As such,
it's unclear that there is lasting technical value to the Internet
Community from publication as an RFC (as opposed to remaining as a
WG-internal document until the publication of the associated
follow-up work).  That said, I am not making this a blocking
objection.

I'm happy to see the secdir thread coming to a conclusion about SDN
vs. NMS -- thanks for working to clear that up.

Otherwise, I just have some grammatical/style nits that I noted
while reading.

Is there any need to disambiguate "Wireless carrier" (i.e., a type of
company) vs. "carrier frequency"?  (I could certainly see an
argument for "no", given the target audience.)

Sections 1 and 2 differ about the lower bound for "microwave radio"
spectrum (1GHz vs. 1.4 GHz).

Section 2

  [...] Using multi-carrier systems operating in frequency bands
  with wider channels, the technology will be capable of providing
  capacities up 100 Gbps.

nit: "capacities of up to"

Section 3.2

  [...] Hence, an
  open and standardized node management interface are required in a
  multi-vendor environment.  Such standardized interface enables a
  unified management and configuration of nodes from different vendors
  by a common set of applications.

nit: singular/plural disagreement between "an" and "are"; also
between "such" (vs. "such a") and "interface enables" (vs.
"interfaces enable")

  On top of SDN applications to configure, manage and control the nodes
  and their associated transport interfaces including the L2 Ethernet
  and L3 IP interfaces as well as the radio interfaces, there are also
  a large variety of other more advanced SDN applications that can be
  exploited and/or developed.

FYI, the word "exploited" has connotations (in some circles) of a
malicious hack, i.e., that such an application has vulnerabilities
that are exploited for nefarious purposes.  (So far as I know,
"utilized" does not.)

The subsections in Section 4 read, stylistically, as if they are
bullet points under the heading of "use cases".  I wonder if there
would be benefit from adding some generic text about "This use
case involves ..." to them.

nit: In Section 6.1, "data plane technology specific" is used (multiple
times) as a compound adjective, which requires some hyphenation.  (I
believe different style guides have conflicting recommendations, but
at least a hyphen in "technology-specific" is generally accepted.)

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for a well written and understandable document.
Please also see Tianran Zhou's OpDir review at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05-opsdir-lc-zhou-2018-04-20/

I have some nits to help improve readability further -- the HTML / rich version is here: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3500

draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework.txt:125
  "multiple gigabits in traditional frequency bands and beyond 10
  gigabits in higher frequency bands with more band width."
band width vs bandwidth


draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework.txt:153
  " there are advantages if radio link interfaces can be modeled and be
  managed using the same structure and the same approach, "
Readability: I'd suggest "can be modeled and managed using..."


draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework.txt:314
  " solution is network management system(NMS), while an emerging one is
  SDN.  "
is *a* network management system (NMS)


draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework.txt:342
  " If nodes from different vendors shall be managed by the same SDN
  controller via a node management interface (north bound interface,"
I think that this would be better as:
"If nodes from different vendors will be managed by the same"
or "If nodes from different vendors are to be managed by the same"

[Ballot comment]
Just to follow up, Deborah explained the answer to my question in private e-mail - so, no action needed from anyone else.

Previous ballot comment:

I had a similar question to Mirja's - I wondered what the relationship between this draft and draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework might be.

I'm not saying there should be a relationship, only that I wondered, and if there is a relationship, readers might benefit from understanding it.

[Ballot comment]
I had a similar question to Mirja's - I wondered what the relationship between this draft and draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework might be.

I'm not saying there should be a relationship, only that I wondered, and if there is a relationship, readers might benefit from understanding it.

[Ballot comment]
This document is well-written and it is absolutly clear that the authors did a very good job in identifying requirements and gaps, as such I think writing this document has for sure been useful for the progress of this work in the IETF! However, I think most of the information in this doc (if needed to be achieved at all) could have been added to an appendix of the actually Microwave Radio Link YANG Data Model that is to come, rather then publishing it as a stand-alone document.

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

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05, 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,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-04-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Daniele Ceccarelli , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, ccamp@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A framework for Management and Control of microwave and millimeter wave interface parameters) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane
WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'A framework for Management
and Control of microwave and millimeter
  wave interface parameters'
  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 2018-04-20. 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


  The unification of control and management of microwave radio link
  interfaces is a precondition for seamless multilayer networking and
  automated network provisioning and operation.

  This document describes the required characteristics and use cases
  for control and management of radio link interface parameters using a
  YANG Data Model.

  The purpose is to create a framework for identification of the
  necessary information elements and definition of a YANG Data Model
  for control and management of the radio link interfaces in a
  microwave node.  Some parts of the resulting model may be generic
  which could also be used by other technologies.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework/ballot/


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

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Carlos Bernardos , Marko Vaupotic , Ippei Akiyoshi , Jeff Tantsura , Luis Contreras , Daniela Spreafico , Min Ye , Koji Kawada , Xi Li , Jonas Ahlberg

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)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

>Informational. This is a framework document, the informational type is appropriate and correctly indicated in the front page. Although the document contains some RFC 2119 language, this is limited to very high-level requirements for the design of the related YANG models. A note in section 3 explains the usage of RFC2119 language.

(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

>To ensure an efficient data transport, meeting the requirements requested by today's transport services, the unification of control and management of microwave and millimeter wave radio link interfaces is a precondition for seamless multilayer networking and automated network wide provisioning and operation.
This document describes the required characteristics and use cases for control and management of radio link interface parameters using a YANG Data Model. It focuses on the benefits of a standardized  management model that is aligned with how other packet technology interfaces in a microwave/millimeter wave node are modeled, the need to support core parameters and at the same time allow for optional product/feature specific parameters supporting new, unique innovative features until they have become mature enough to be included in the standardized model.
The purpose is to create a framework for identification of the necessary information elements and definition of a YANG Data Model for control and management of the radio link interfaces in a microwave/millimeter wave node. Some part of the resulting model MAY be generic which COULD also be used by other technology.

Working Group Summary
>This document has been produced by a design team including all the major vendors in the microwave industry. It has been reviewed by the CCAMP and received comments both during the meetings and on the mailing list. There was an intense discussion at the beginning to place this work in relationship with the one carried on by the ONF, but then an agreement was reached and the document widely supported.

Document Quality
> All the major vendors participated to the work and wanted to be member of the design team. They also participated to various IETF hackathons and produced a paper for the IETF journal. No further particular review is needed in addition to general ones to make sure the document is fully understandable and well written.

Personnel
>Daniele Ceccarelli is the shepherd
>Deborah Brungard is the responsible area director.

(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 current revision of thedocument and believes it 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 concerns

(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? If so, describe the review that
took place.
> None in particular.

(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 such 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.
> The reply of each single author and contributor has been recorded in the history of the document. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework/history/

(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 against the document.

(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? 
> The document is supported by a high number of WG members and has been produced by a design team representing a wide plethora of vendors in the area.

(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 threats or discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
> No issue found by the tool.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
> No such review needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
> Yes, all the references have been identified correctly.

(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?
> Normative references only include published RFCs.

(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 downward references.

(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 change to existing RFCs.


(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 consideration section does not include any request to IANA.

(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.
>No such sections.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carlos Bernardos , Marko Vaupotic , Ippei Akiyoshi , Jeff Tantsura , Luis Contreras , Daniela Spreafico , Min Ye , Koji Kawada , Xi Li , Jonas Ahlberg

IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/g6bniYrSVZxus7btMotWV0Kgcb4

AUTHORS
Jonas Ahlberg Email: jonas.ahlberg@ericsson.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/RERdFDUu8eDXnZPtIiM4RZLvmnE
Luis M. Contreras Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/hyXiNuE_-pVimFe9hotkNsX3Xyc
Ye Min Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/tgq5zOBeSioRtnTo4cOavdlgmPo
Marko Vaupotic Email: Marko.Vaupotic@aviatnet.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/CLXDRZ5rb-WdwcIRKAi5Qo9U_9Q
Jeff Tantsura Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/j-xK1vSAggrVormTw6_eIRVwuU0
Koji Kawada Email: k-kawada@ah.jp.nec.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/7d4z0wY7tHEg9y6Eq0bcUnFDkZ8
Xi Li Email: Xi.Li@neclab.eu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/e1n9eUpcS5JZaRcGHp1GyKiWSjs
Ippei Akiyoshi Email: i-akiyoshi@ah.jp.nec.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ggODyDdNWgfk0aC3JvPFccOHonQ
Carlos J. Bernardos Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/iKWD4bZXTRgi_LWgt9VXsZTyTHE
Daniela Spreafico Email: daniela.spreafico@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/RDLMO7-ZxWpSk5gdzuV77Z3yPPs

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carlos Bernardos , Marko Vaupotic , Ippei Akiyoshi , Jeff Tantsura , Luis Contreras , Daniela Spreafico , Min Ye , Koji Kawada , Xi Li , Jonas Ahlberg

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Carlos Bernardos , Marko Vaupotic , Ippei Akiyoshi , Jeff Tantsura , Luis Contreras , Min Ye , Koji Kawada , Xi Li , Jonas Ahlberg

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carlos Bernardos , Marko Vaupotic , Ippei Akiyoshi , Koji Kawada , Luis Contreras , Min Ye , Jeff Tantsura , Xi Li , Jonas Ahlberg