Re: [Lime] Progress on LIME Connectionless documents

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 29 June 2017 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 74F4912EC54 for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 K9arx-CAZ5lw for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::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 E4EBC1200C1 for <lime@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 16so82177715qkg.2 for <lime@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EDDVhsNl2Hzn0fjnvKoAO27sdWOp0snDfK4r+xHFs5A=; b=bjyvzmo4jHOcxgQP6HsNA7Ow6HTYJLzL6YxGI3O1jrXRoGjXfeU/gBI7BMdCaVw9te fa+QaLeOabsdbgetv5Ony490PJkUCWOJL+lTHoUpTIHqne6Lzewg7C40sZsrnoM4PVDr Jb9aBxrXvI6OkLBEQLALo/E2ORMHvFTk+V3/WzjP/ivTNtpESFUGWwU73oKM4ZJthay9 AjvlofeLLOLo2Tzq7WnX8U4Vein+E/LFb+nsHEWAObOeSg80yUrHYMVGu8zRE9RTfNBL o4k24DTj9MGxlVOKsdcWzff41DKZ5OOFP9e39QHpr0+Tk3SgKj0BH3Da+KX95Rrf/dUj dDlg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EDDVhsNl2Hzn0fjnvKoAO27sdWOp0snDfK4r+xHFs5A=; b=Ngn42ymErE6c2Jpbso3pWB/ejMwN08DwN3ogkQmEKpo0IxQtuoaLfOjQsXcVWclCot Gk5ZzJ3vU1OMMT1KZsZME1YlP7rLfjRJIPtvfbmhSlJ8fNaE6jfzUODKMxSjCMC3/49k w/Ww6Etpbh4vNwm6tpt62lIGn2OraG80m8Sv0r1cyNudS0xAROikWT9neL+UJwYXsMhz TrXR7WXsYKMG4utZ9S8UsdUDt+IBs0pzSw+LVfDLg7MeBSqUIxIsodsmpcldKNhuWZ8w ybhF2Rz2RwDMNcmK94E4bZD8aseiph/n7VEg28um5sK7a1VmgMg0/zlWoK0ebAjMCtIN Wa2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwQNc/V0o73SXZTJQPNVIIbHLFOTp3RyFtsVzyxFwt+Jkx7pSKq Oa0G32dl2lDOkCPtr3Gcxh8ApmWqBg==
X-Received: by 10.55.36.141 with SMTP id k13mr21258289qkk.64.1498757300888; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.22.168 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <EE1E0223-21A1-471B-89D4-B3A00A10C567@cisco.com>
References: <29E5AA02-4CC5-4CA9-A967-A9355EBD9175@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmXRaE3-nRbvzOAUqio7LFbzav6z5WDwLs07MOnFXiPMOg@mail.gmail.com> <EE1E0223-21A1-471B-89D4-B3A00A10C567@cisco.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:28:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmW+PJLsYXZ9MjXmAj5NKu722uxCQMXjqok64S=j2qr=kQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, "lime@ietf.org" <lime@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143219c86297005531ca0d6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/8NekB0HmACry-vjYM1h_S75WhAI>
Subject: Re: [Lime] Progress on LIME Connectionless documents
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, 29 Jun 2017 17:28:25 -0000

Hi Carlos,
WGLC from January 2017? Considering that last time I've shared comments
with authors at the meeting in Chicago, I'd consider that that WGLC had
failed to clear the bar. But if WG chairs and AD believe differently, then
the drafts were in the WG LC for five months.

As I've mentioned, I've shared my comments at the meetings, on the list and
conference calls. Regrettably, I've learned that my comments not taken into
consideration and too many misconceptions stayed in the documents from one
version to another after I've pointed them out. I consider it professional
courtesy to reach directly to reviewers to confirm that proposed changes
address their concerns. Sadly, no one asked my opinion about the changes
that went into the current version.

As I was not given time to review the latest version I took rather quick
look at the connectionless OAM document and found the following:

   The level in 'oam-layers' indicate whether related OAM test point is
   The level in oam-layers indicate whether related oam test point is in
   client layer(lower layer described in section 3.3
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-07#section-3.3>),
server layer
   (upper layer described in section 3.3
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-07#section-3.3>)
or the same layer as the
   current test point under Test point Locations.

I'm having hard time parsing this text and hope you can explain as you
seem to be fine with it. And when I've followed on the reference to
section 3.3

I've found that what I've commented on, suggested to change and
authors verbally agreed to do still in place - {-1, 0, 1} model to
indicate server-client layers.

But, as I've pointed many times, relationships between Test Points on
different layers may be more complex and may skip some layers
(Ethernet OAM with its 8 layers

in MEG may be one example). For the Test Points on the given OAM
layer, notifications may be coming from different OAM layers down
below. Current model,

as I read the text, does not allow such scenario.


But since I'm the only one who is, and frankly, has been commenting on
these drafts throughout the time of the WG, I'll prepare thorough
comments for the IETF LC.


I had privilege working and observing work of all authors and learned
from them a lot, got to respect their professionalism. Cannot
understand what happened this time.


Regards,

Greg


On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:

> Greg,
>
> I am astonished at your statement.
>
> WGLCs:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/hcOi85Eu3dquUJZwWvx3BW_ZGbE
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/4fRb9w-S9Z01x3CCRty7x8uhdmw
>
> Your comments to the WGLCs:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/Bx6A0eqPRT4qXU8e_caXm4EElQA
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/8_O41P0U4yy2zNfeX4jwxSZk6oU
>
> After that the authors worked with you to incorporate your comments.
> Subsequent revisions prompted more comments from you, all of which were
> appropriately disposed of:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/x_ljuI0fvvNn2TSwj1BqXO6vgVo
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/nQGL4cgWSaCWpNXiLnvgt_OqbSk
>
> After that, the chairs gave you additional time and provided specific
> review to subsequent comments:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/oY44xRj9wm6aiqALdyRLuQ3j1BQ
>
> A disposition to a comment means that they could have resulted in a
> change, or not.
>
> IPR call coincinging with Adoption call:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/1ojMMWgjloC3FsE3Hp9E2JN2u00
>
> I hope that clarifies?
>
> Thanks,
>
> — Carlos.
>
> On Jun 28, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> Hi Carlos and Ron,
> thank you for the update on these drafts. I haven't seen IPR poll, WGLC on
> any of these. Have I missed them? I do have comments I'd like to share. Or
> should I wait for the IETF LC?
>
> Regards, Greg
>
> On Jun 28, 2017 1:27 PM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> Dear WG,
>>
>> We will be progressing the LIME Connectionless documents, submitting them
>> to our AD.
>>
>> Please see the respective write-ups at:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connec
>> tionless-oam/shepherdwriteup/
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connec
>> tionless-oam-methods/shepherdwriteup/
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Carlos & Ron.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lime mailing list
>> Lime@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime
>>
>>
>