Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 06 March 2015 03:38 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 D873C1AC402 for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:38:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.222 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_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 L905vtgUy5Tv for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:38:43 -0800 (PST)
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 89B731AC3C5 for <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:38:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPY19916; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 03:38:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 03:37:47 +0000
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.146]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:37:42 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime-oam-model@ietf.org" <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Status
Thread-Index: AdBUb+kI6Mtyq6LaR7++JmP639kyRADTm+Sw
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 03:37:41 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846DDFE9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CO1PR05MB4422C6491A3B7179F229574AE130@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR05MB4422C6491A3B7179F229574AE130@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
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: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime-oam-model/sYDdAXpMs8HBcTmZIGRS8B9JN9s>
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 03:38:45 -0000

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