Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status

["Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <[e-mail]>]

Works for me also.

Thanks,
Deepak

From: Qin Wu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 8:35 PM
To: Ronald Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: dekumar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: Status

Works for me.

-Qin
发件人: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2015年3月10日 9:30
收件人: Gregory Mirsky; Qin Wu; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
抄送: Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
主题: RE: Status

Folks,

Can I ask the design team to meet urgently this week and come to one of the following conclusions? Either:


1)      We have complete consensus and it is ………

2)      We have complete consensus on A, B and C. We don’t have consensus on D, E, and F

3)      We can’t even agree on the questions

If the answer is 2), please be prepared to describe A, B, C, D, E and F at IETF 92. Also, be prepared to describe the rationale between opposing positions.

                                                                         Ron



4)      We have consensus and it is {{From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:12 PM
To: Qin Wu; Ronald Bonica; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
Subject: 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".

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.
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.

        Regards,
                Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Lime-oam-model [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 2:08 AM
To: Ronald Bonica; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] Status

Hi, Ron:
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2015年3月7日 5:28
收件人: Qin Wu; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Qin Wu
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 10:38 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> 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:[e-mail]] 代表
> Ronald Bonica
> 发送时间: 2015年3月2日 6:40
> 收件人: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> 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
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model
> _______________________________________________
> Lime-oam-model mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model
_______________________________________________
Lime-oam-model mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model