Dear Adrian and Davis, Nice! Thanks a lot for this document. I think it will help future documents to chose the correct terms and language.
I reviewed and have some minor input. Regarding Change: A modification to the state of a resource in time. I believe it not only applies to a resource but also a network entity such a network path or a NRLI. Not only applying to management but also to control plane. From a Network Anomaly Detection perspective it might even stretch to an outlier, including also forwarding plane. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-netana-nmop-network-anomaly-semantics-00#section-2. Regarding Incident: An event that has a negative effect that is not as required/desired. For me an incident is one or more symptoms (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-netana-nmop-network-anomaly-semantics-00#section-4). As you described, an event can be positive or negative. One or more negative event or measurement can lead into a symptom. See also https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9418#section-2. Regarding Problem definition. I suggest to go towards the an objective or intend (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9315) is no longer fulfilled. Best wishes Thomas From: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 4:15 PM To: ne...@ietf.org Cc: draft-opsawg-evans-discardmo...@ietf.org; draft-netana-opsawg-nmrg-network-anomaly-semant...@ietf.org; draft-feng-opsawg-incident-managem...@ietf.org; n...@irtf.org; 'Davis, Nigel' <nda...@ciena.com>; 'Ops Area WG' <opsawg@ietf.org> Subject: A new draft on Network Incident Terminology Be aware: This is an external email. All, At the side meeting in Prague, Nigel and I committed to putting together a first stab at a terminology set for network incidents. We have now posted a -00 draft. The intentions here are: * To provide a starting point for discussions of the terminology * To give something that can be edited and made correct * To end up with a set of terms that we can agree upon and use in all of our work We would be shocked if we have got this right on our first pass. We are sure that there will be many opinions, and we welcome suggestions for edits and proposals for changes. Although this email is circulated quite widely (including OPSAWG, NMRG, and NMOP (still masquerading as NETMO)), we believe that this work will end up in NMOP (if the WG is ever formed) and so we suggest that all responses and discussions be directed exclusively to the NETMO mailing list. Looking forward to a fruitful debate, Nigel and Adrian === Internet-Draft draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology-00.txt is now available. Title: Some Key Terms for Incident Management Authors: Nigel Davis Adrian Farrel Name: draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology-00.txt Pages: 5 Dates: 2024-01-18 Abstract: This document sets out some key terms that are fundamental to a common understanding of Incident Management. The purpose of this document is to bring clarity to discussions and other work related to Incident Management in particular YANG models and management protocols that report, make visible, or manage incidents. The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology-00.html
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
