Re: [Lime] Progress on LIME Connectionless documents

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

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) <
[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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)" <[e-mail]>
> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime
>>
>>
>