Re: [Lime-oam-model] Design Team report

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Fri, 20 March 2015 12:31 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 7CA291A89A9 for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 sSsyvCap_fDR for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x236.google.com (mail-ig0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236]) (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 EB2AD1A898C for <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igcqo1 with SMTP id qo1so16347666igc.0 for <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:31:46 -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:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jycTRLeymmm2tHOVypT6w+TGNmKeoHfjrZQS7GVQA2s=; b=GpGvrLdWzoQmAzYzatYheI+HV5fFo+DbYz78Rl+2eC0CoVc/gDhRjPZLCT4o+T4CHp gvEFOTxmVPb+8tIe0XdfJSE5pzZrad+polGL1r5MYznxwW9nmxAY8RmiZGl3YubMTBMF LVY88eDhWIwwvmnTicq2yJ/bh1mxTKL9fHS4fzKGuq/Xs2rgfnhRI+VLjVGy8NC0ETBg g3jn+KbLMoIX1vOX6tdTPa4N1njj+jFK4E2y1YmjKu2ibdgbgUzEEfs4sE76RfeMqYh8 eZOH8zAS+F0r/7XImzpYsWhehLOsxdG70zkTEK/8BLBe476lINOs9ZTS9hb/nMlmHPEr 7gsg==
X-Received: by 10.107.162.74 with SMTP id l71mr68823005ioe.77.1426854706432; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.135] (dsl-173-206-173-170.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.173.170]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ig15sm1444384igb.10.2015.03.20.05.31.45 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <550C1330.6080300@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 08:31:44 -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: "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <dekumar@cisco.com>, Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime-oam-model@ietf.org" <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
References: <D130C6AC.B99D2%dekumar@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D130C6AC.B99D2%dekumar@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime-oam-model/tDtVJwz-x3S3V9p4cGGeDgw4N2o>
Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Design Team report
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, 20 Mar 2015 12:31:48 -0000

As Greg said, that is the opposite of what I intended. It does raise an 
interesting question: is a service like p2mp an IP service or a service 
provided by a different layer?

Tom

On 19/03/2015 9:34 PM, Deepak Kumar (dekumar) wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> I was referring to following model, where topology is defined as empty
> in generic model and can be extended by technology specific OAM in their
> own Yang model.
>
> Grouping topology {
>      Choice topology {
>        Case topo-null {
>          Description
>            "this is a placeholder when no topology is needed";
>          Leaf topo-null {
>             Type empty;
>             Descroption
>               "there is no topology define, it will be define in
> technology specific."
>          }
>        }
>      }
> }
>
>
> Grouping MEP {
>
>      Leaf mep-name {
>      }
>      Uses MEP-ID;
>      Uses mp-address;
>      Leaf interface {
>      }
>      Uses topology;
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Deepak
>
>
>
>
> On 3/19/15 8:22 AM, "Gregory Mirsky" <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
> <mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Deepak,
>     I thought I agree with Tom that topology of monitored object, e.g.
>     p2p or mp2mp, is technology-independent OAM-wise but your view puts
>     topology against ... topology. Perhaps you can illustrate or give
>     definition to what you view as technology-independent topology and
>     how it is different from the topology of monitored object.
>
>     Regards,
>     Greg
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Deepak Kumar (dekumar) [mailto:dekumar@cisco.com]
>     Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 7:21 PM
>     To: Tom Taylor; Qin Wu; Gregory Mirsky; Ronald Bonica;
>     lime-oam-model@ietf.org <mailto:lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
>     Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Design Team report
>
>     I agree with Tom, Topology is technology-independent and should
>     belong to generic model and expand it in technology specific model
>     with specific like p2p, p2mp, etc..
>
>     Thanks,
>     Deepak
>
>     On 3/18/15 11:23 AM, "Tom Taylor" <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com
>     <mailto:tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Below with [PTT].
>
>         On 17/03/2015 10:57 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
>
>             Hi, Greg:
>
>         ...
>
>
>             [Qin]: Do you proposed to add p2p and p2mp,bi-directional,
>             uni-direcational as part of LIME generic model, or add them
>             as part
>             of technology-specific data model extensions?
>
>         [PTT] I would think topology is technology-independent as an
>         abstract
>         concept, and therefore belongs in the generic model. To bring
>         that in
>         line with reality, there would have to be interplay with the
>         technology-specific models to indicate which topologies these
>         models
>         support.
>
>         ...
>
>
>