Re: [Lime] Progress on LIME Connectionless documents

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Qin,
I've to point that this is not "new" proposal but rather proposal editors
of the document, apparently, disregarded.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Qin Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am not criticizing the limitation of two proposals discussed below. My
> augment is two proposals have been well investigated and compared, the
> current proposal we took in this draft is good enough based on the below
> analysis.
>
>
>
> If you have better proposal, I am happy to hear. But I am surprised you
> again have your late comment since the draft has been shipped.
>
>
>
> -Qin
>
> *发件人:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *发送时间:* 2017年7月6日 23:35
> *收件人:* Qin Wu
> *抄送:* Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Benoit Claise (bclaise); [e-mail]
> *主题:* Re: [Lime] Progress on LIME Connectionless documents
>
>
>
> Hi Qin,
>
> thank you for your consideration of my comment and sharing your arguments.
> Indeed, I don't think that model that have only Self, Server and Client
> layers can present some scenarios of multi-layer OAM application in
> networks. And merely increasing that number to 8 or 16 layers, in my
> opinion, would not be much better. In YANG terms I view OAM layers, as well
> as their corresponding network layers, as entries on a list. The entries
> are indexed and the index provides the key. Entries of the OAM list,
> obviously, can represent connection-oriented or connectionless OAM.
>
> Perhaps we can have side discussion in Prague. I'll try to prepare mode
> detailed comments to both documents before then (the last two weeks before
> the meeting are super-busy as always).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Qin Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I think what Greg commented earlier is to make clarity on the definition
> of server layer, client layer, he didn’t point out the limitation of using
> level under oam-layer.
>
> Maybe the train has leave the station. J
>
>
>
> I think the debate is whether we use absolute relationship between tests
> points at different layer or use relative relationship between test points
> at different layer.
>
> If we describe the relative relationship between test points using server
> layer, client layer and the same layer, I think we should make assumption
> that we know the order of the test points from source to destination,
> otherwise how to set level if we have more than 3 testpoints at different
> layer or level. I think index may implicitly indicate the order of these
> test points.
>
> If we describe the absolute relationship between test points using (-8,8),
> or (-7,7), we also make assumption for the same protocol layer, we can not
> breakdown into several sub-layers. It is the downside of using absolute
> relationship.
>
> Looks like both proposals have limitation, if we really want to tweak
> proposal, we may consider
>
> a)       we add a protocol layer under oam-layer to stand for absolute
> stack layer. But technology under test-point-locations may have already
> indicated this.
>
> b)       We expand the number of levels more than 8, e.g.,let’s say 16
>
>
>
> -Qin
>
> *发件人:* Lime [mailto:[e-mail]] *代表 *Carlos Pignataro
> (cpignata)
> *发送时间:* 2017年7月4日 3:43
> *收件人:* Greg Mirsky
> *抄送:* Benoit Claise (bclaise); [e-mail]
> *主题:* Re: [Lime] Progress on LIME Connectionless documents
>
>
>
> Hello, Greg,
>
>
>
> The WG held real-time editathon interims in which we went comment by
> comment, many of those from you: https://datatracker.ietf.
> org/meeting/past#lime
>
>
>
> After that, the editors have been diligently working through all the
> comments received, including all of yours (from WGLC and from before).
> There have been several iterations of document revision as all those
> comments were addressed and edits incorporated. As I had mentioned,
> addressing a comment does not necessarily imply changing the document — it
> can mean reply explaining why not.
>
>
>
> I think that when you say “I've learned that my comments not taken into
> consideration” you are mischaracterizing the story. I witnessed the authors
> considering and discussing your comments, time and again. And when you
> further add “no one asked my opinion about the changes that went into the
> current version”, the editors asked the WG as a whole about the changes, we
> discussed them in person and in interims, and the process announces new
> revisions on list for interested parties to comment.
>
>
>
> That said, and most importantly, if you feel you still have technical
> comments or unaddressed concerns on the current versions, I’d urge you to
> share those with clarity on the list. The editors and WG as a whole can
> review them and reply. There is no need to wait, the sooner things are
> addressed the better.
>
>
>
> The goal of the WG is to produce quality and timely documents.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> — Carlos.
>
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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-connectionless-oam/
> shepherdwriteup/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-
> connectionless-oam-methods/shepherdwriteup/
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Carlos & Ron.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lime mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> —
>
> Carlos Pignataro, [e-mail]
>
> *“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself
> sound more photosynthesis."*
>
>
>
>
>