Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status

Gregory Mirsky <> Mon, 09 March 2015 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7554D1A014B for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.211
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G3h0l84UdVsu for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B083D1A8B84 for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79876d000003ebd-26-54fd7151534c
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D2.33.16061.1517DF45; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:09:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:11:51 -0400
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: Qin Wu <>, Ronald Bonica <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Status
Thread-Index: AdBUb+kI6Mtyq6LaR7++JmP639kyRADTm+SwACVgyuAAfGezIAAPG6qg
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:11:50 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B91C5ECeusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuphkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonSjew8G+IwZV9EhaP5y5gtfi56hO7 Rc/qZmaLA98dHFg8pvzeyOrRcuQtq8eSJT+ZPK43XWUPYInisklJzcksSy3St0vgyri6Ygpr wa9WxorTW9azNDDure5i5OSQEDCR2PO3kRXCFpO4cG89G4gtJHCEUWLWRvUuRi4gexmQ/f0w I0iCTcBI4sXGHnYQW0SgWuJ3634wm1nAQKLvwGywZmEBYYk9/YuBhnIA1YhIrHrHD1HuJnG/ 7SLYGBYBFYm1Hw+wgNi8Ar4SZy4fYoTYdZhJ4vfp10wgCU6BMInt+48xg9iMQMd9P7WGCWKX uMStJ/OZII4WkFiy5zwzhC0q8fLxP6hnlCQmLT3HClGfL/Hl+Rx2iGWCEidnPmGZwCg6C8mo WUjKZiEpg4hrScxr+A1VoygxpfshO4StKXFl8iEoW1ti2cLXzAsY2VcxcpQWp5blphsZbGIE Rt8xCTbdHYx7XloeYhTgYFTi4TWY8ydEiDWxrLgy9xCjNAeLkjjvogcHQ4QE0hNLUrNTUwtS i+KLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwJu/fskZwzqdX8+7eSln9IO8ol+nSFm+P8h3u9eqHcl+WHvVz1y2z SplRp5oUf7+tUli33H/PTVHRgNi3teL/ROc7Rp18ynPzwCeeXU72U7pmt3Sd235iMkPZjOVy M7e/Up2a9qJG5VKwyYF07kX+Dy+W3H1f3dSYod9rs2WT9U6ecM+29ub/SizFGYmGWsxFxYkA xnHti58CAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Deepak Kumar \(dekumar\)" <>
Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status
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: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:12:04 -0000

Hi Qin, Ron, et. al,
apologies for the extended absence from the discussion.
I believe that the statement that:
      > CFM like model as management plane model is orthogonal to data plane
      > OAM protocol and meet all these requirements.
Does not entirely reflect state of discussion within the DT, especially that "CFM like model … meets all the requirements".

And I cannot agree with the conclusion here either:
      > Also MP (assume that 'MP' stands for 'Maintenance Point') terminologies are widely used in the most of OAM technologies,
      > it is not a good idea to define new terminologies to represent common
      > elements for the OAM model.
It is not about luck of terminology but luck of terminology likely indicates that respective objects not being identified or used. Hence, if we to build common OAM model, objects should be identified and defined, including through terminology. Alternatively, we have OAM technologies that share sufficient commonality to work with.


-----Original Message-----
From: Lime-oam-model [] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 2:08 AM
To: Ronald Bonica;
Cc: Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status

Hi, Ron:
发件人: Ronald Bonica []
发送时间: 2015年3月7日 5:28
收件人: Qin Wu;<>
抄送: Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
主题: RE: Status


Thanks for this summary. Unless I hear otherwise, I will assume that this is the group's consensus.

[Qin]: It has been a few days and no-one has disagreed.

IMHO, the design team has three tasks standing between itself and completion:

- craft a slide deck documenting findings

[Qin]: I will write the first draft and we can discuss on this list.

- present that slide deck at IETF 92

[Qin]: I am happy to do this if no one has objection.

- produce an ID recording findings

[Qin]: I can also start this task. I think I can make a first draft before Dallas, but I am not allowed to post it until Monday morning of IETF week in Dallas.

Is that OK?


Do we have volunteers for any of those tasks?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lime-oam-model [] On
> Behalf Of Qin Wu
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 10:38 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica;<>
> Cc: Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
> Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status
> Ron:
> If my understanding is correct, here is the status of group discussion.
> Based on first design team discussion ,people agreed to sort out
> common OAM requirements first, Greg provides OAM (Data) Model Analysis
> table from his perspective which compares IP OAM, IP/MPLS OAM, MPLS-TP
> OAM, TRILL OAM from several criteria and lists several common
> requirements.
> Based on OAM Model Analysis, common elements used for OAM model are
> agreed, e.g., testing point, connection oriented vs
> connectionless,loss of continuity defect,fault domain,technology type,
> addressing, ECMP, common OAM functions(e.g., cc,cv, path discovery, performance measurement).
> CFM like model as management plane model is orthogonal to data plane
> OAM protocol and meet all these requirements.
> Also MP terminologies are widely used in the most of OAM technologies,
> it is not a good idea to define new terminologies to represent common
> elements for the OAM model.
> Therefore my understanding is that the choice of an OAM model seems to
> have no impact on the LIME work.
> LIME model focuses on common part of various OAM technologies,
> therefore LIME's work can be made "model agnostic".
> Regards!
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Lime-oam-model [] 代表
> Ronald Bonica
> 发送时间: 2015年3月2日 6:40
> 收件人:<>
> 主题: [Lime-oam-model] Status
> Folks,
> Since the group's formation, we have lost two members (Nobo and Tissa).
> Santosh PK will replace Nobo.
> Could Qin or Greg summarize that group's status for Santosh?
> Also, Qin and Greg, do you think that the design team will have
> anything to report at IETF 92?
>                                                 Ron Bonica
> _______________________________________________
> Lime-oam-model mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Lime-oam-model mailing list
Lime-oam-model mailing list<>