Re: [Lime] Eric Rescorla's No Record on draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-06: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 22 February 2018 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BD012D942; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:18:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 QldQt1olzq-o; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:18:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B316127876; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:18:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9280; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519323501; x=1520533101; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=udkQiR8frDgBpcqFglqKVmavmfCI3J9mHOMgNE3Z+bE=; b=lz6Bgn9U66uZGz2N5pr3qpGomlRxdRJtVC8U1kBkuf2VBiC7XFwOyd1v 4tQREjLti5Lt433UpdT9L+1whzZXXxXdQsUPUgSs/j4jarXeqbiNtprjL QRAcklC8pWEsvIXsD/Q2vD+Yq6z7C7A2U+K8xFU9Zrozgefq5pLy34C4L k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CGAgBbCI9a/5xdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNPZnAog2iYIYFQCyeBFpBwhXKCAgolhQ8Cgi5XFQECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAmsohSQBBSNWEAsOCiMEAwICRhEGDQYCAQGKHxCrE4InJoRag3eCFwEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFhRmCJ4FXghAMgnmDMAIBAgGBOgESAYM2gmUFinK?= =?us-ascii?q?IeJBVCYgojWaCIIYog3Emh2WODIIBiB2BPDUjYFgRCDMaCBsVgn2CGzkcGYILI?= =?us-ascii?q?zcBinCCPgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.47,378,1515456000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="73957670"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Feb 2018 18:18:20 +0000
Received: from [10.82.171.153] ([10.82.171.153]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1MIIJvp025519; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:18:20 GMT
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, lime-chairs@ietf.org, lime@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model@ietf.org
References: <151931292859.8172.17676467685442090922.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0bf546d6-0e8f-cc58-1cb4-03ad134e0601@cisco.com> <CABcZeBMr27bMXi8-wJznroz3ExHbv=Jhbnp-mL6_KuwFghA=UA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <467717d8-177d-1689-4a65-cfd6a11b6cb7@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:18:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMr27bMXi8-wJznroz3ExHbv=Jhbnp-mL6_KuwFghA=UA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------21B37430820FCD709679D50B"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/3EO1UCz6615Wf9QfaNLIczCeU-I>
Subject: Re: [Lime] Eric Rescorla's No Record on draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." <lime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lime/>
List-Post: <mailto:lime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:18:24 -0000

On 2/22/2018 10:43 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com 
> <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 2/22/2018 10:22 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>         Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
>         draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-06: No Record
>
>         When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
>         to all
>         email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
>         cut this
>         introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>         Please refer to
>         https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>         <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
>         for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>         The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
>         here:
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model/
>         <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model/>
>
>
>
>         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>         COMMENT:
>         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         I didn't really get through this, but I had a few editorial
>         points.
>
>         It's almost certainly my unfamiliarity with the setting, but I
>         found it
>         a bit hard to understand the context of this document. I think
>         there
>         were two things I found a bit confusing:
>
>         1. Why you need a separate model for connectionless and
>         connection-oriented
>             OAM?
>
>     The WG tried to a single model for both connectionless and
>     connection-oriented (the charter didn't make the distinction), but
>     that proved difficult. Therefore, It was decided to go with two
>     different models.
>     Maybe we could have added this piece of history in the write-up.
>
>
> It would have helped me a bit to have a sentence for why. Perhaps 
> something like
> "A companion document [REF] provides a model for connectionless 
> protocols. In the judgement of the
> working group, these settings were sufficiently different to justify 
> distinct models"
That's an easy fix.

Regards, B.
>
> -Ekr
>
>     Regards, Benoit
>
>
>         2. What sort of concepts should I be having in my head for MD,
>             MA, and MEP? Are these kind of like "site", "link", and
>         "endpoint"?
>
>         This may all be completely clear to people with OAM experience in
>         these settings, in which case feel free to ignore me. But it did
>         make it a bit hard for this layperson to read.
>
>
>         .
>
>
>