Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Fri, 06 March 2015 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 5A3251A870A for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:27:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.913
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 4WSiZAX25ESI for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:27:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0114.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E52D1A86F0 for <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.106.15; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:27:45 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.100]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.100]) with mapi id 15.01.0106.007; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:27:45 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "lime-oam-model@ietf.org" <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Status
Thread-Index: AdBUb+kI6Mtyq6LaR7++JmP639kyRADTm+SwACVgyuA=
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:27:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CO1PR05MB4423E80AE097618FB4BED8CAE1C0@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CO1PR05MB4422C6491A3B7179F229574AE130@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846DDFE9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846DDFE9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13]
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB443;
x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51704005)(377454003)(102836002)(33656002)(62966003)(122556002)(99286002)(77156002)(221733001)(86362001)(2656002)(66066001)(92566002)(87936001)(2501003)(76576001)(74316001)(2950100001)(40100003)(2900100001)(54356999)(46102003)(15975445007)(76176999)(19580395003)(50986999)(19580405001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB443; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO1PR05MB443950D3F7ACA25B221F012AE1C0@CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5002007)(5005006); SRVR:CO1PR05MB443; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO1PR05MB443;
x-forefront-prvs: 05079D8470
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Mar 2015 21:27:45.1668 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR05MB443
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime-oam-model/omZmGou4tINaxZauYWCiTmGHBX0>
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: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 21:27:49 -0000

Qin,

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

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

- craft a slide deck documenting findings
- present that slide deck at IETF 92
- produce an ID recording findings

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
> 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
> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model
> _______________________________________________
> Lime-oam-model mailing list
> Lime-oam-model@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model