Re: [Lime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-11.txt> (Generic YANG Data Model for Connectionless Operations, Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocols) to Proposed Standard

Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com> Tue, 28 November 2017 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <huubatwork@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 3C06C1200F3; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 02:21:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.975
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.975 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, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 rnpzqyRJQ6Xr; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 02:21:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (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 0A9E0126579; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 02:21:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x63so683336wmf.2; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 02:21:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=reply-to:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :disposition-notification-to:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jbhkSKUr1rINeFGnp0MAmXnMMrIx5cnrPuddCB78iPs=; b=lqyT2E+4vtECSwo/scmGELWCD+/2SCIUaG2jSXYi5oYEkWj5oQnnb6NYnsL1eEjrh/ ZiwT053WtLPXh6AsxX6B6ZQ6/F8dbJ3ZzrLrjO8SxZnuSCe8hpetlH5yoHIEwdWsEkqN YvsO9QGrZ7oWPnWxzBzeP3rNqLErWfaWo9NIifCWg9P1EgDnbWmLVsGbDgweLW/F/Tgd T2cs/xRKwz+adpjOIcF+lvZeE+ZC8IWE41j87lvCrB8ANDgwOxmwre3ZgGCCNcHmeOE6 GI7JR2Y/TmRSPH1Q13aZeQMBoz3aKEIyEy7e+PwvH3cLSoXTiXw1ZXPnzhbsUoAZaHQx i4fw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:to:cc:references:from :message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jbhkSKUr1rINeFGnp0MAmXnMMrIx5cnrPuddCB78iPs=; b=fx6lLrX4PbmTFBVhQw01WASROY+oYxdd7GFF36W29BpWBk1imBT0VusZaW2xsaPuts sgx4nh+ihOjqPESWic5OXmB4FCp5iWwVMGbNPXA1O3cAAhVrSg/vo+0qvEXjk02/uWxU P0WlTz+v1G5AlCU8SUDW6KHsbksSI/43ryvWf5WAOZmAUH1MpU2rJZYjy8ZqIVqe4pre AqOJSDVFlN8DOtSmH0dbsxewIjH5KxPiQ3jn4s9r+V4Ktj160tHFTqE1uu3Iay94C7hr +uIiRabX33/EDsevulibFYUa2zDkbHluR24g72ZrpjrBF5MUbcxCEVtfrLrIPaL1V/xK 8X/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5IpTGTOnlnLwiN/JhbI6drqC++cd7QlW5PVq20o3hlQr9s+nEG SyfFPO+XbtxmMv2gPOkunvXdMA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZf6hNyryM4c+f54OE9TbWAWzCqyWWF6Itm7IMKcT+9hoFqRVIZ8WlxW8rP4L6d7Vo2OgmEQA==
X-Received: by 10.80.205.156 with SMTP id p28mr1941386edi.255.1511864473335; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 02:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from McAsterix.local (g77189.upc-g.chello.nl. [80.57.77.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w51sm4991500edd.84.2017.11.28.02.21.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 02:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: huubatwork@gmail.com
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime-chairs@ietf.org" <lime-chairs@ietf.org>, "lime@ietf.org" <lime@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam@ietf.org>
References: <150772925005.24695.3851410645764765123.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmVq9MnC97LuVRzhYiR+_dj0gQ2YRSp+b-223fjQXvhR_w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXfB2fPn8GzaWYKwUJZhLwnKc_raO9ELf+8ANnAcED-vA@mail.gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AC0F246@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmXhhxcrrhfB+ZT9A813_M35U4zuirWpt6YhM5rwGN09eQ@mail.gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AC15C2E@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmV9vN-pzUjBNmDhYL7=E52w3NNDGk5OWGNnn1g1wrkrjA@mail.gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AC173CC@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmXsE6WHEWBb4ReYN3O6ztNTFZ4nG-YOBvxjQvckxc=XHQ@mail.gmail.com> <499e8dc0-fcac-a3a9-e3ae-630691b70bc4@gmail.com> <0888e2d6-f39f-1683-b174-5e3d19df1eae@cisco.com>
From: Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3b6c5ab3-ff5e-1d1a-313c-2dd7bdd0919d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:21:42 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0888e2d6-f39f-1683-b174-5e3d19df1eae@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/Pfb9teRQC04RNaDm2wOayi-HGKc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 03:55:44 -0800
Subject: Re: [Lime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-11.txt> (Generic YANG Data Model for Connectionless Operations, Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocols) to Proposed Standard
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: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:21:17 -0000

Hello Benoit,

You reply:
For your information, the document is now in the RFC editor queue, ready to be published.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam/" rel="nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam/
I had not seen any response from the authors to the email from Greg
(I checked the archive) so I assumed that the issue was still being
discussed.
Other on-line comments were addressed by the authors.

I also checked for updates to version 18, but did not find any, so I
don't know how the issue has been resolved.

So now I have to wait until the RFC is published.

Regards, Huub.

=========

Hello Greg,

I agree with you that the current (version 18) text in section 3.3 is very confusing.

Authors:

If I look at the definition of TP in section 2.2 I think a TP is similar
to a maintenance point as defined for Ethernet. Am I correct?

I don't understand why there are TPs with no neighboring TPs,
where will their initiated OAM test be sent? Or where are OAM
tests they react to initiated?

It is IMHO also possible that there are TPs with a neighboring
TP before AND a neighboring TP after the current TP.

Please explain.

Regards, Huub.

---------

Dear All,
I was under impression that that question of oam-neighboring-tps has been discussed and since authors couldn't produce technical rationale for this object we've agreed that it will be removed altogether from the grouping connectionless-oam-tps. But authors just changed name from level to position but had missed to synchronize descriptions in the model and in section 3.3. The later still refers to vertical layers:
                     "List of related neighboring test points in adjacent
                     layers up and down the stack for the same interface
                     that are related to the current test point.";
while the model insists that it is peering relationship:
        description
          "The relative position
           of neighboring test point
           corresponding to the current
           test point. Level 0 indicates no neighboring
           test points placed before or after the current
           test point in the same layer.-1 means there is
           a neighboring test point placed before the current
           test point in the same layer and +1 means there is
           a neighboring test point placed after the current
           test point in same layer.";
So, what is it? Perhaps it is time to remove list oam-neighboring-tps altogether also because having it s fixed size list is plain wrong. (Sorry for being so blunt but I commented too many times on the same to no avail from the authors).

Regards,
Greg


-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...
.


-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...