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

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Thu, 19 March 2015 04:07 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 7C35E1A8752 for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.422
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, 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 qyytGt208WHG for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
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 C73E11A8749 for <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BTV08138; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:07:22 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:07:21 +0000
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.244]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:07:15 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <dekumar@cisco.com>, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>, Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime-oam-model@ietf.org" <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lime-oam-model] Design Team report
Thread-Index: AQHQYaiYhIfA7HyrnEWc2Z/pR9Exq50ijVyAgACjlVA=
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:07:14 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8470BD8F@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <5509C284.5000903@gmail.com> <D12F7F4E.B97C7%dekumar@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D12F7F4E.B97C7%dekumar@cisco.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/zWWXLaqrKsY9SOLnSD-cgoORZaY>
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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:07:28 -0000

+1

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Deepak Kumar (dekumar) [mailto:dekumar@cisco.com] 
发送时间: 2015年3月19日 10:21
收件人: Tom Taylor; Qin Wu; Gregory Mirsky; Ronald Bonica; lime-oam-model@ietf.org
主题: 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> 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.
>
>...