Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 10 March 2015 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 453201AD0BB for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.221 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 nO88vACglO22 for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7DEA1AD0B7 for <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BTL52401; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 02:04:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 02:04:55 +0000
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.146]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:04:50 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime-oam-model@ietf.org" <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Status
Thread-Index: AdBUb+kI6Mtyq6LaR7++JmP639kyRADTm+SwACVgyuAAfGezIAAPG6qgABReJZA=
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 02:04:50 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846DFFF5@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B91C5EC@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.180]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846DFFF5nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime-oam-model/j8NhXuD9Xhj29fCaUZ7zzW2Au5Y>
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 02:05:02 -0000

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".
>
> Regards!
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Lime-oam-model [mailto:lime-oam-model-bounces@ietf.org] 代表
> Ronald Bonica
> 发送时间: 2015年3月2日 6:40
> 收件人: lime-oam-model@ietf.org<mailto:lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
> 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@ietf.org<mailto:Lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model
> _______________________________________________
> Lime-oam-model mailing list
> Lime-oam-model@ietf.org<mailto:Lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model
_______________________________________________
Lime-oam-model mailing list
Lime-oam-model@ietf.org<mailto:Lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model