Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Tue, 10 March 2015 02:25 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.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 954811A00CF for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 mDRXuramxykO for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CCB21A00BD for <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igdh15 with SMTP id h15so27007368igd.3 for <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4jAS14Pp31125BHjqCm3s0N0o5pRrNYZM3Mxebg7Y4g=; b=JrgffTXZL+vnORy7sWonlRRfjGw5qxGpkUTL8EQB1ifIhXSzkLbUuYTTc5LNO+m83N cMjcIO+nuQcbGuKa/WC/t0UMXyHt2m72eTD5s/yXv8j82Pzow5wnWlye36LX4KB58itb mK5K8SNyklHjIXBht9skmdm1dBxoJxT6cXXsh1SOrheoS1N7lRv7tK8pOzIpMTa+XtuE bszesD4JNuobueBlLFNGZ8xnxkPzXlrKWxvN9KNpyS612gbn17RNKmwCjCbOnzSjN2iv MqrNNCOyNRnh931f/5OHBi+rOeqFYKBREWZkeG9tNvq5zVXUwV8CrtvPikaB68rXuLxc 1mWQ==
X-Received: by 10.50.79.230 with SMTP id m6mr51971680igx.33.1425954343079; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.135] (dsl-173-206-150-251.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.150.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g71sm13255412ioe.43.2015.03.09.19.25.42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54FE5625.90306@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:25:41 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime-oam-model@ietf.org" <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
References: <CO1PR05MB4422C6491A3B7179F229574AE130@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846DDFE9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CO1PR05MB4423E80AE097618FB4BED8CAE1C0@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846DF59E@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B91C5EC@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846DFFF5@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846DFFF5@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime-oam-model/gkaWKvO2dTvbqyYMVpoxoZk9te4>
Cc: "Deepak Kumar \(dekumar\)" <dekumar@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status
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: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 02:25:45 -0000

My original E-mail protested against the abbreviations, but now I've 
read enough to understand them. BUT I also in that E-mail gave a list of 
functionalities, and I want to be sure that these are all covered by the 
entities that have been cited.

On 09/03/2015 10:04 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
> 发件人: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com]
> 发送时间: 2015年3月10日 0:12
> 收件人: Qin Wu; Ronald Bonica; lime-oam-model@ietf.org
> 抄送: Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
> 主题: RE: Status
>
> 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".
> [Qin]: which requirements are not met by CFM like model.
> In your comparison analysis table, you compare IP OAM, IP/MPLS OAM, MPLS-TP OAM, TRILL OAM, the following components are
> supported by all the OAM technologies:
> 1.Trail Termination Source Information/MEP ID
> 2.MIP ID Implicit
> 3.On-demand Continuity Check
> 4.Proactive Continuity Check
> 5.On-demand Connectivity Verification
> 6.Loss Measurement
> 7.Delay Measurement
> 8.Loss of Continuity Defect
> Therefore I believe CFM like model or layer independent OAM model support these above components.
> As for Other components
> 9.Forward Defect Indication
> 10.Backward Defect Indication
> 11.Miss-merge Defect
> 12.Miss-connection Defect
> These components can be supported by technology-specific data model extensions.
>
> 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.
> [Qin]: I am just summarizing what we discussed before. I am confused with your statement.
> Tom Taylor proposed to use new terminology to describe OAM model when you disagreed to use MP/MIP like terminologies.
> You suggest not invent new terminologies.
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lime-oam-model/current/msg00056.html
> Isn’t your current statement against what you said to Tom’s proposal before?
>
> 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.
>
> [Qin]: which objects are not identified besides the above components you listed above?
>
>          Regards,
>                  Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lime-oam-model [mailto:lime-oam-model-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 2:08 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica; lime-oam-model@ietf.org<mailto:lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
> Cc: Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
> Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status
>
> Hi, Ron:
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]
> 发送时间: 2015年3月7日 5:28
> 收件人: Qin Wu; lime-oam-model@ietf.org<mailto:lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
> 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:lime-oam-model-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Qin Wu
>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 10:38 PM
>> To: Ronald Bonica; lime-oam-model@ietf.org<mailto:lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
>> 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".
>>
...