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