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

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

Return-Path: <dekumar@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC9E1A9080 for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UitNHwqHi8p7 for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97ABC1A9062 for <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; 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-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ALBQAYeQtV/5BdJa1cgkNDgSwEzCQCgUFMAQEBAQEBfYQPAQEBBIEFBgEIEQQBASgoERQJCAIEARKIGwMRyGANhTEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGYsXgSOBIYI0BoQnBY4+gg6IIYFMgRuMZ4Jfg0cig25vAYFDfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,434,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="133705290"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2015 01:34:55 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (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 xmb-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.1.29]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:34:54 -0500
From: "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <dekumar@cisco.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime-oam-model@ietf.org" <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lime-oam-model] Design Team report
Thread-Index: AQHQYSdFuDT4e8nnHkuwxDoGhp81rp0i4qQAgAAQTgCAAU+tAIAANauA
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 01:34:54 +0000
Message-ID: <D130C6AC.B99D2%dekumar@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B9349D7@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206
x-originating-ip: [10.24.225.232]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D130C6ACB99D2dekumarciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime-oam-model/-5mZXI9DjEBMNAJi_fsDtwlFSTw>
Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Design Team report
X-BeenThere: lime-oam-model@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LIME WG OAM Model Design Team <lime-oam-model.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lime-oam-model>, <mailto:lime-oam-model-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lime-oam-model/>
List-Post: <mailto:lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lime-oam-model-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model>, <mailto:lime-oam-model-request@ietf.org?subject=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 {
        Description
          "this is a placeholder when no topology is needed";
        Leaf topo-null {
           Type empty;
           Descroption
             "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;
}

Thanks,
Deepak




On 3/19/15 8:22 AM, "Gregory Mirsky" <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com<mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>> 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.

Regards,
Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Deepak Kumar (dekumar) [mailto:dekumar@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 7:21 PM
To: Tom Taylor; Qin Wu; Gregory Mirsky; Ronald Bonica; lime-oam-model@ietf.org<mailto:lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
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..

Thanks,
Deepak

On 3/18/15 11:23 AM, "Tom Taylor" <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com<mailto:tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>> 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
support.

...