Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01

Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 05 January 2012 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E824E21F88E9; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:51:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.067
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.067 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_OTHER=0.135]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YIjikDguC5LS; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007B021F88E6; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so1827144iab.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:51:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=LS6vWWI9RzQz5wbeKJiiQToEbi8EBa41IE3IC4fxEnc=; b=cfjsf24bqxAORj5fxQ1uLfjKa97jQgmygZzfKRdg5Sz8QSy8w2FqaTCJCkVW36DCtE UIAse7HQi6pjqeE+b1Adv2K8YrIt5bj5y+P7xEgusO7mszKznHPyLTPm40g4NteY9zze 0gJn50fS4fi4hHI5Eqv1zUXzIaw6hbrqoAxpg=
Received: by 10.42.76.66 with SMTP id d2mr4127258ick.7.1325807511620; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.253.142] ([12.207.18.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cv10sm121249187igc.0.2012.01.05.15.51.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:51:50 -0800 (PST)
References: <CABU764s08xA-sVn8oBw56_w+uWZ0JTggWpp0oXmv+edZ__eofg@mail.gmail.com> <4F0342A9.1000301@cisco.com> <0D57BB9E-5415-44CF-A553-A61E9E86E49E@lucidvision.com> <CA+RyBmU6Y+zty8NHODXyOdGErhq-8pbSk9QuOBi0-EGvLwesOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmU6Y+zty8NHODXyOdGErhq-8pbSk9QuOBi0-EGvLwesOw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-754B4705-EC6D-45C3-9258-619D77DDE0CC
Message-Id: <0EED0879-0913-4B65-B6C1-B3DDA4DA9F83@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A405)
From: Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:51:50 -0800
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, Jaihari Kalijanakiraman <jaiharik@ipinfusion.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 23:51:53 -0000

Hi Greg,

The question was in fact got asked over email by WG chairs, and also by me, when I presented at Quebec and Taipei. The decision was still inconclusive, though the strongest indication given thus far is "TP MIB's should be readonly, albeit OAM configuration like Bfd, ping etc". The other comment George gave at Taipei was "Netconf will be used for configuration".

I have sent a request to WG chairs, after Taipei, to provide a conclusive answer, so that, we could update the drafts accordingly. Yet to receive a answer though.

HTH,
Sam

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 5, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Tom, et al.,
> I had to refresh my recollection of the discussion in Taipei. According to minutes we don't have the decision regarding the use of MIBs to configure MPLS-TP objects. Somewhere in my memory stuck that the proposal was to limit new MPLS-TP MIBs to R/O and I wonder if it is self-inflicted memory or one of options chairs and the WG is looking into.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> wrote:
> 
>        Stewart,
> 
>        The question of whether or not to allow "configuration" via the OAM protocols (or protocol extensions) was something I raised several months ago in PWE3, although it was also discussed in MPLS as I recall in Taipei as well. It seems to have arisen again.   The conclusions in PWE3 were to allow configuration of only OAM-related things (i.e.: not allowing expansion of the protocols for general configuration). Presumably configuration via MIBs there is still okay. In MPLS I recall the chairs stating that configuration was a thing reserved for NetConf when the question of MIB-based configuration was raised for WG MIB drafts in general (and in particular WRT to the MPLS-TP MIBs).    Those positions seem slightly at odds with each other.  And now your answer now seems inconsistent with those as well.
> 
>        Can we get a single answer from the ADs/IESG on this that pertains to all MPLS-TP related work?
> 
>        --Tom
> 
> 
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> >
> >> 2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "*Y.1731 based OAM for MPLS-TP*"?
> >>
> > Without prejudice to any decisions on Y.1731 and MPLS-TP.
> >
> > Wouldn't such a MIB be a derivative of the Y.1731 MIB?
> >
> > Stewart
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls