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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 22 February 2018 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 2664E12741D; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:29:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 uGDlkYdpWmMa; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:29:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F3741241F3; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:29:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1857; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519313370; x=1520522970; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6nJ4h62s1sTlWRUlf4KgLpcvn4f5QEvUWjMXtcDYS7w=; b=W2SMLw20lAWWqdOTRiaf4jtDfjIendQinGZuZ77OdbjcuiY9FJvSQ5Vb 5pEs0YZScsGsrs/9T+59y3Xb+d9qP1XUh8F6TZfoNXScWqwTA2OltFoyS 2VdalLUOL7Z4re9cFExVFTTRbtjhQAuzRqKtxG6VwKIIbRHESVintQd9D 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BrAgA/4Y5a/5BdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNPZnAog2iYH4FQMoEWlmKCAgolhQ8Cgi5XFQECAQEBAQEBAms?= =?us-ascii?q?ohSMBAQEDASMVQRALDgoCAh8HAgJXBgEMCAEBihcIEKp5gieFAIN2ghMBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYEPhAqCJ4FXghCDBYMwAgECAYE6ARIBgzaCZQW?= =?us-ascii?q?Kcoh4kFUJiCiNZoIghiiDcSaHZY4MggGIHYE8NSNgWBEIMxoIGxWCfYJUHBmCC?= =?us-ascii?q?yM3AYpwgj4BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,377,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="141258967"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Feb 2018 15:29:29 +0000
Received: from [10.82.171.153] ([10.82.171.153]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1MFTTN3025411; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:29:29 GMT
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: rbonica@juniper.net, lime-chairs@ietf.org, lime@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model@ietf.org
References: <151931292859.8172.17676467685442090922.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <0bf546d6-0e8f-cc58-1cb4-03ad134e0601@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:29:29 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <151931292859.8172.17676467685442090922.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/eZpnJq3CGj_VfTBN1eOgIPy6L64>
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 15:29:32 -0000

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-connection-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.

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.
>
>
> .
>