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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> 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.
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>