IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lime] WG Last Call

Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> Fri, 01 July 2016 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.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 C56E012D0CD for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 11:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.191
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] 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 gQOOGEGFcL8n for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 11:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (usplmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C482D12B078 for <lime@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 11:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f796f6d000000e1e-9c-5776bcedf30d
Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usplmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BE.C7.03614.DECB6775; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 20:56:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:57:48 -0400
From: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime@ietf.org" <lime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call
Thread-Index: AdHNeHo9mfLLAhikTCqAkzKOu/b2GQGTg5yg
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 18:57:49 +0000
Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221ABEDAA@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <BLUPR0501MB2051737D8381B2F9B322F5EEAE2D0@BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR0501MB2051737D8381B2F9B322F5EEAE2D0@BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221ABEDAAeusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmplkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonXPftnrJwgy3zdCw6tm1nsjjw3cGB yWPJkp9MHtebrrIHMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZcz9dIi54EdKxd6GFewNjBsiuhg5OSQETCS2 bV/MBmGLSVy4tx7MFhI4yihxY6pbFyMXkL2MUeJHzxQWkASbgJHEi4097CC2iICHxPI/v5lA bGEBSYmbV46wQsSlJDZt2MIMYRtJnNixBayeRUBF4viSPUA1HBy8Ar4S559XQ+xKkFi5fg1Y OadAosTxuzfAyhmB7vl+ag3YeGYBcYlbT+YzQdwpILFkz3lmCFtU4uXjf6wQtpLEpKXnWCHq 8yV6z+4Eq+cVEJQ4OfMJywRGkVlIRs1CUjYLSRlEXEdiwe5PbBC2tsSyha+ZYewzBx4zIYsv YGRfxchRWlyQk5tuZLiJERg5xyTYHHcw7u31PMQowMGoxMO74FxpuBBrYllxZe4hRgkOZiUR 3mk7y8KFeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ8+q/VAwXEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2CyTJxcEo1MDrn /9qyIFmpJX03Z5nu9HX/lsdNTf138KTw+vrZkgV+oqf4thSFyn1jnquk3uD8evOlpcZWIf7F JycoZGx2SzU+UqAUX7zt773pnneEfr+O6GRlCJyq8Th4Pkf0Gtatl/Ndpq1XfGW85GHPzZUz rh1VrkjTCpkxLXx6/tmlmQXfuVlm+zqmflViKc5INNRiLipOBABh0mnnmAIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/aEiLnN4NnUp9BaCUKleRnpV8Cdw>
Subject: Re: [Lime] WG Last Call
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: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 18:57:54 -0000

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:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ronald Bonica
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 10:57 AM
To: lime@ietf.org
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

Lime@ietf.org<mailto:Lime@ietf.org>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email