Re: [Lime-oam-model] Design Team report

"Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <> Fri, 20 March 2015 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC9E1A9080 for <>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UitNHwqHi8p7 for <>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97ABC1A9062 for <>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9493; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1426815310; x=1428024910; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=9H58SWm84+3okYaTppf6LJ/Io+HclhysNvlKJmHt0FA=; b=cVUY1j7plSiBDEVWG229grcy0/bOj10yRtN8cevSPip1t1GGvYVgKMay sh1RNVy2vpkcdJeHqmiAPvejzBKtsfvVx3xzeRB6udMf78ib4fEmMYKjw Z4LAcHEuMuttOhQI0GiX+q65LPZ7FGyFSJe3wR/x7eDhQ+g5SJ/VGxvlA 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,434,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="133705290"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2015 01:34:55 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2K1Ysnn013987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 20 Mar 2015 01:34:54 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:34:54 -0500
From: "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <>
To: Gregory Mirsky <>, Tom Taylor <>, Qin Wu <>, Ronald Bonica <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Lime-oam-model] Design Team report
Thread-Index: AQHQYSdFuDT4e8nnHkuwxDoGhp81rp0i4qQAgAAQTgCAAU+tAIAANauA
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 01:34:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D130C6ACB99D2dekumarciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Design Team report
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LIME WG OAM Model Design Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 01:35:11 -0000

Hi Greg,

I was referring to following model, where topology is defined as empty in generic model and can be extended by technology specific OAM in their own Yang model.

Grouping topology {
    Choice topology {
      Case topo-null {
          "this is a placeholder when no topology is needed";
        Leaf topo-null {
           Type empty;
             "there is no topology define, it will be define in technology specific."

Grouping MEP {

    Leaf mep-name {
    Uses MEP-ID;
    Uses mp-address;
    Leaf interface {
    Uses topology;


On 3/19/15 8:22 AM, "Gregory Mirsky" <<>> wrote:

Hi Deepak,
I thought I agree with Tom that topology of monitored object, e.g. p2p or mp2mp, is technology-independent OAM-wise but your view puts topology against ... topology. Perhaps you can illustrate or give definition to what you view as technology-independent topology and how it is different from the topology of monitored object.


-----Original Message-----
From: Deepak Kumar (dekumar) []
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 7:21 PM
To: Tom Taylor; Qin Wu; Gregory Mirsky; Ronald Bonica;<>
Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Design Team report

I agree with Tom, Topology is technology-independent and should belong to generic model and expand it in technology specific model with specific like p2p, p2mp, etc..


On 3/18/15 11:23 AM, "Tom Taylor" <<>> wrote:

Below with [PTT].

On 17/03/2015 10:57 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
Hi, Greg:

[Qin]: Do you proposed to add p2p and p2mp,bi-directional,
uni-direcational as part of LIME generic model, or add them as part
of technology-specific data model extensions?

[PTT] I would think topology is technology-independent as an abstract
concept, and therefore belongs in the generic model. To bring that in
line with reality, there would have to be interplay with the
technology-specific models to indicate which topologies these models