Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Ron:
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2015年3月7日 5:28
收件人: Qin Wu; [e-mail]
抄送: Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
主题: RE: Status

Qin,

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?

Thanks.

Do we have volunteers for any of those tasks?

                                                                 Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lime-oam-model [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Qin Wu
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 10:38 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica; [e-mail]
> 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 [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表
> Ronald Bonica
> 发送时间: 2015年3月2日 6:40
> 收件人: [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model
> _______________________________________________
> Lime-oam-model mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model