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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

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.
>
>
> .
>