Re: [Lime] Eric Rescorla's No Record on draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-06: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 22 February 2018 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 7956A12741D for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:44:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 7dMol5T39cDX for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:44:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (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 84E2712D7F3 for <lime@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id b130so6959787qkg.9 for <lime@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:44:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DdcBZ1j2zFgTulxUutsHOJ1ggtx/4bTxcp/NLDb0BDk=; b=Lzn/TV3mwN2a7JuJbA8dzTQwcbSdfThNQO8HZDXFfDtwUP7hr5r9FwpN7cN4HTQXE3 VEEPHEOTc4IE0ck4WpM7lmwaP4H+KSx8DPqg9UXH7aSe7Y2Dkdhv8swpc4M/GENSGsqz BejcRt5EnIRsQDYD47H8q9rfaIQ3YzdBX7Uq1MsClOpia/ygLBJIJ2Ta1kkk05WIoOSU 4MyVykUPVDgm+YfNljbjPp+Xb4E/4x3rFNBwHIVereShOOldY0zJur0M3QoJUHBf9w/J TzacEqv3G8r7le5ZcfN1t8/rH4XLO94azAIbq3WWMBnnGdGaa/82wOSLRrlPsMAl8l8/ v5JA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DdcBZ1j2zFgTulxUutsHOJ1ggtx/4bTxcp/NLDb0BDk=; b=ucW+1yM6AiYbOOv2db63CeIkKxvpUKn/xH02K7Pz7Td7oRsl044zzPZrkT7//Rx2PI sk9EHvohxuU6pGRDUoadwnSCKNXEydV3rSOqclZxI+/gVZhIYtpT5cIpbju4HYvYe/SU rfxO/GFsBN1O2SmKun59b7XhgsmRenkVU0ZWlQai8jccegpEV+nDuoOVnXz5cH7yd+i4 63ZWB/fBIA6bbmCfAijhSXnWiAn2B03OYZ5MZp+2MnRbvd5qrvpsJHV2CJ2q/EOYjcv3 QV13qx1L0Ot6iu/A2CshMF+C2HFJNMlDxrJPFNPHOZaM+fDxnj+tiB8UjBYH3ZnlCSXc gdlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPB8PwlPfNyo/gdd5nuTjFsh2ih98QmuZxkQba5tFX/3Up5oMOoe VvRMahw5ZsxfmcnW8rqlswY0GZs4linwEkpk3/ok4A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuxk2LP4XHbKPxLxRCk36LiZGXrwLReh/NKo+8+cUHuSdNTBjgxfhVS7ubT89fep6EPYXnAeVHADAPS7qHH96Y=
X-Received: by 10.55.195.145 with SMTP id r17mr11447807qkl.83.1519314259511; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:44:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.37.176 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:43:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0bf546d6-0e8f-cc58-1cb4-03ad134e0601@cisco.com>
References: <151931292859.8172.17676467685442090922.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0bf546d6-0e8f-cc58-1cb4-03ad134e0601@cisco.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:43:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMr27bMXi8-wJznroz3ExHbv=Jhbnp-mL6_KuwFghA=UA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, lime-chairs@ietf.org, lime@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1147a324bda17e0565ceea54"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/cIGgTNZ8XW0cxn878nWA65sqCGk>
Subject: Re: [Lime] Eric Rescorla's No Record on draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-06: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:44:24 -0000

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>; wrote:

> On 2/22/2018 10:22 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-06: No Record
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connec
>> tion-oriented-oam-model/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I didn't really get through this, but I had a few editorial points.
>>
>> It's almost certainly my unfamiliarity with the setting, but I found it
>> a bit hard to understand the context of this document. I think there
>> were two things I found a bit confusing:
>>
>> 1. Why you need a separate model for connectionless and
>> connection-oriented
>>     OAM?
>>
> The WG tried to a single model for both connectionless and
> connection-oriented (the charter didn't make the distinction), but that
> proved difficult. Therefore, It was decided to go with two different models.
> Maybe we could have added this piece of history in the write-up.
>
>
It would have helped me a bit to have a sentence for why. Perhaps something
like
"A companion document [REF] provides a model for connectionless protocols.
In the judgement of the
working group, these settings were sufficiently different to justify
distinct models"

-Ekr

Regards, Benoit
>
>
>> 2. What sort of concepts should I be having in my head for MD,
>>     MA, and MEP? Are these kind of like "site", "link", and "endpoint"?
>>
>> This may all be completely clear to people with OAM experience in
>> these settings, in which case feel free to ignore me. But it did
>> make it a bit hard for this layperson to read.
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>