IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08

wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com> Wed, 25 January 2017 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <wangzitao@huawei.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 DF3E212960D; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:29:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 sOcBJIPSbRHe; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:29:47 -0800 (PST)
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 3C8B2129609; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:29:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DFE22500; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:29:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:29:42 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.117]) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.209]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:29:36 +0800
From: wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com>
To: 顾 戎 <gurong_cmcc@outlook.com>, "draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org>, "lime@ietf.org" <lime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08
Thread-Index: AQHSdfL8bRLWgKWzTfmpQHUffN61mKFIeFrQ
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:29:36 +0000
Message-ID: <E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2AD7E83A@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <KL1PR0201MB1656E08072978303854908728B750@KL1PR0201MB1656.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <KL1PR0201MB1656E08072978303854908728B750@KL1PR0201MB1656.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.78.198]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2AD7E83ADGGEMM506MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090204.58880D98.00A5, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.117, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: f3771858a47f9110231a5c0794692c46
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/FjwrXrvTDvI5alJJ2wfhg_rJy0k>
Cc: "rbonica@juniper.net" <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08
X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:29:49 -0000

Hi GuRong,

Thanks for your comments! It make sense for me, a proper type can reduce the risk of making mistakes.
I would like to discuss with coauthor and may be change it in next version.

Best Regards!
-Michael

发件人: 顾 戎 [mailto:gurong_cmcc@outlook.com]
发送时间: 2017年1月24日 12:40
收件人: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org; lime@ietf.org
抄送: rbonica@juniper.net
主题: RE: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08


Hi dear all,



After reading this document, here are some tiny comments.

1)      In page 22: The range of MD-level is 0..255, but the type defined here is uint32. Uint8 may be a more reasonable type.

2)      In page 34: The range of packet-size is 64..1000, therefore, I think uint16 may be a more reasonable type.

3)      In page 36: same as the previous comment.



Besides, I support the publication of this document as an RFC.



GuRong

gurong_cmcc@outlook.com<mailto:gurong_cmcc@outlook.com>

gurong@chinamobile.com<mailto:gurong@chinamobile.com>



-----邮件原件-----

发件人: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]

发送时间: 2017年1月20日 0:14

收件人: lime@ietf.org<mailto:lime@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org>

主题: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08



Folks,



This message begins a WGLC on draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08. Please submit comments by February 3, 2017.



                                           Ron

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email