Re: [Lime] WG Last Call

[Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Qin,
thank you for your thoroughness and pointing to misattribution on my part. I think it would be even clearer if the document refers to the table in Appendix V of G.8013 that establishes mapping between CFM and G.8013/Y.1731:
[cid:image001.png@01D1D6A9.886013B0]
Note, that MPLS-TP OAM terminology uses terminology of ITU-T G.8013/Y.1731.

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: Qin Wu [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 8:56 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Ronald Bonica; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: WG Last Call

Greg:
Thank for your comments. I am confusing with the analogue given below.
RFC6371 define ME as follows:
“
   Maintenance Entity (ME): Some portion of a transport path that
   requires management bounded by two points (called MEPs), and the
   relationship between those points to which maintenance and monitoring
   operations apply (details in Section 3.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6371#section-3.1>).

”
ME is actually referred to a subpath between two measurement points, one example of ME is LSP or PW or a tunnel.

RFC 6371 further define MEG as:
“

   Maintenance Entity Group (MEG): The set of one or more maintenance

   entities that maintain and monitor a section or a transport path in

   an OAM domain.



”
Which align with MA definition give in the IEEE802.1q amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.1ag
as follows:
“
Maintenance Association (MA)
Defined as a "set of MEPs, all of which are configured with the same MAID (Maintenance Association Identifier)
”
It looks it is apparent that MA is equivalent to MEG since two measurement points constitute ME, therefore a set of maintenance entities can be interpreted as
as a set of measurement points as well.
Therefore MA+MD is equivalent to MEG, both measurement point and measurement segment/ME should be under MA or MEG.

-Qin
发件人: Lime [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Gregory Mirsky
发送时间: 2016年7月2日 2:58
收件人: Ronald Bonica; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: Re: [Lime] WG Last Call


Dear Authors, WG chairs, et. al,

please find my comments to the latest version of the document below.

・         I think that the section 7.2 that discusses MPLS-TP OAM YANG  module must reference YANG data model for MPLS-TP draft-zhang-mpls-tp-yang-oam at least as Informational reference (to avoid dependency if it is Normative one);

・         I think that since MPLS-TP OAM uses different terminology if compared with the draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model, mapping must be established in the document under review. For example, Maintenance Domain is analogous to Maintenance Entity Group, and Maintenance Association is analogous to Maintenance Entity.

・         section 7.2.2

o   “Meg-Id parameter under MA data node will be selected for MPLT-TP OAM model.” I think that you’ve chosen the wrong ID. MA is analogous to ME, not MEG. Please check with draft-zhang-mpls-tp-yang-oam.

o   s/ MPLT-TP/MPLS-TP/

・         section 7.2.2.1

o   “In MPLS-TP, one example of connectivity-context is a 20 bit MPLS  label.” Labels in MPLS-TP don’t have context as these are transport, not application labels and are unique only for allocating LSR.

・         section 7.2.4 “…are extended with MPLS-TP specific such as exp …” I assume you were referring to Traffic Class (TC) field. Again, please refer to draft-zhang-mpls-tp-yang-oam for RPC definitions.



In conclusion, I’m glad that most of my earlier comments been addressed and thank you authors for thorough consideration. But I think that this document needs another version.



                Regards,

                                Greg





-----Original Message-----
From: Lime [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ronald Bonica
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 10:57 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Lime] WG Last Call



Folks,



This message begins a WG last call for draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-06. Last call ends on July 7, 2016.



                                  Ron



_______________________________________________

Lime mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime