Re: [Lime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-11.txt> (Generic YANG Data Model for Connectionless Operations, Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocols) to Proposed Standard

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Wed, 29 November 2017 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@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 10EF01242F5; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:06:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 EjosCoXlU7tg; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B74AF120227; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:06:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=23476; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1511989612; x=1513199212; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=UUGup0XmZksT9Cll4hlnDu2BIwSb0JisjjHAXqgmfCQ=; b=ZKyLWhpZTgxNlwrMSvIKXpU8bSJXDcaqlMaMHWQhzO7uxpVuJna03wRz jvstXo1qFPzTKOeYHU7aMjK5W8DrA4Cgflq8VWx7nMY9LneSKT6g2ttH1 ixRIHVkT0/ZkiwSdXNRtRu2/C/oiW3qzcZ2TMH7czizPAvHH+dzbILa8d Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DUAABtIB9a/40NJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJKRC5mbicHg3iKII5wgX2IaohAhUoQggEKJ4UUAhqEez8YAQEBAQEBAQEBax0LhR8BAQEBAyNPBxACAQgRAwECJAQDAgICHxEUCQgCBA4FiT5MAxUQA6dIgicmhw4NgyYBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYNBggmBVoFpKYMCgmtHGIEeBQESAQc4FoJfMYIyBYo6hz+HMYhmPQKHcoghhHmCFoYPhWSFSIx5O4hhAhEZAYE5AR85YVsVbxU6KgGBfoJSHBmBTneHP4EkgRQBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.45,339,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="38090169"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 29 Nov 2017 21:06:51 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-007.cisco.com (xch-rtp-007.cisco.com [64.101.220.147]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vATL6pIn017094 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 21:06:51 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-007.cisco.com (64.101.220.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:06:50 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:06:50 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: "huubatwork@gmail.com" <huubatwork@gmail.com>
CC: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "Ronald P. Bonica" <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime-chairs@ietf.org" <lime-chairs@ietf.org>, "lime@ietf.org" <lime@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-11.txt> (Generic YANG Data Model for Connectionless Operations, Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocols) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHTQpaR7crx2zDS7kC2rAOW6lNAlKLrJSkAgAHYPQCABB9KAIACV92AgADF4YCAAKRDAIAA0fcAgBuah4CAGCTSAIAAld+AgAAuIgCAABzRAIACIhcAgAAHroA=
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 21:06:50 +0000
Message-ID: <88B5F94B-63BC-4F1B-9C8A-0544A3DA9941@cisco.com>
References: <150772925005.24695.3851410645764765123.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmVq9MnC97LuVRzhYiR+_dj0gQ2YRSp+b-223fjQXvhR_w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXfB2fPn8GzaWYKwUJZhLwnKc_raO9ELf+8ANnAcED-vA@mail.gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AC0F246@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmXhhxcrrhfB+ZT9A813_M35U4zuirWpt6YhM5rwGN09eQ@mail.gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AC15C2E@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmV9vN-pzUjBNmDhYL7=E52w3NNDGk5OWGNnn1g1wrkrjA@mail.gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AC173CC@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmXsE6WHEWBb4ReYN3O6ztNTFZ4nG-YOBvxjQvckxc=XHQ@mail.gmail.com> <499e8dc0-fcac-a3a9-e3ae-630691b70bc4@gmail.com> <0888e2d6-f39f-1683-b174-5e3d19df1eae@cisco.com> <3b6c5ab3-ff5e-1d1a-313c-2dd7bdd0919d@gmail.com> <646B9160-2BBF-4546-9163-D6504A47C7D7@cisco.com> <1b527039-bf80-ead5-e341-c8cfeb24f855@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1b527039-bf80-ead5-e341-c8cfeb24f855@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.116.133]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_88B5F94B63BC4F1B9C8A0544A3DA9941ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/fZ9D_PNCdQKSro87ZU229GnIP_w>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:08:11 -0800
Subject: Re: [Lime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-11.txt> (Generic YANG Data Model for Connectionless Operations, Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocols) to Proposed Standard
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 21:06:56 -0000

Dear Huub,

Thanks for the response – glad to see this loop is closed.

Best,

-- Carlos.

From: Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "huubatwork@gmail.com" <huubatwork@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime-chairs@ietf.org" <lime-chairs@ietf.org>, "lime@ietf.org" <lime@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-11.txt> (Generic YANG Data Model for Connectionless Operations, Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocols) to Proposed Standard

Hello Carlos,

Thank you for the additional information.

As I mentioned I already looked at version 18 because that was mentioned
in Gregs response.

I have understood that this draft was discussed in Singapore.
Unfortunately the agreed resolution was not reported on the list.
That is why I missed (part of) the discussion.

I will have no further comments.

Best regards, Huub.

-----------
Additionally, please see https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-17&url2=draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-18, which shows the changes relevant to that specific comment.

I believe the authors are using text suggested by Greg.

Like Benoit said, the document is approved and in the RFC Editor queue:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/qyhKwFkE4VB9HA0S04tOWPDFK9Q

Best,

—
Carlos Pignataro, carlos@cisco.com<mailto:carlos@cisco.com>

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."


On Nov 28, 2017, at 5:21 AM, Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com<mailto:huubatwork@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello Benoit,

You reply:
For your information, the document is now in the RFC editor queue, ready to be published.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam/
I had not seen any response from the authors to the email from Greg
(I checked the archive) so I assumed that the issue was still being
discussed.
Other on-line comments were addressed by the authors.

I also checked for updates to version 18, but did not find any, so I
don't know how the issue has been resolved.

So now I have to wait until the RFC is published.

Regards, Huub.

=========


Hello Greg,

I agree with you that the current (version 18) text in section 3.3 is very confusing.

Authors:

If I look at the definition of TP in section 2.2 I think a TP is similar
to a maintenance point as defined for Ethernet. Am I correct?

I don't understand why there are TPs with no neighboring TPs,
where will their initiated OAM test be sent? Or where are OAM
tests they react to initiated?

It is IMHO also possible that there are TPs with a neighboring
TP before AND a neighboring TP after the current TP.

Please explain.

Regards, Huub.

---------
Dear All,
I was under impression that that question of oam-neighboring-tps has been discussed and since authors couldn't produce technical rationale for this object we've agreed that it will be removed altogether from the grouping connectionless-oam-tps. But authors just changed name from level to position but had missed to synchronize descriptions in the model and in section 3.3. The later still refers to vertical layers:

                     "List of related neighboring test points in adjacent

                     layers up and down the stack for the same interface

                     that are related to the current test point.";
while the model insists that it is peering relationship:

        description

          "The relative position

           of neighboring test point

           corresponding to the current

           test point. Level 0 indicates no neighboring

           test points placed before or after the current

           test point in the same layer.-1 means there is

           a neighboring test point placed before the current

           test point in the same layer and +1 means there is

           a neighboring test point placed after the current

           test point in same layer.";
So, what is it? Perhaps it is time to remove list oam-neighboring-tps altogether also because having it s fixed size list is plain wrong. (Sorry for being so blunt but I commented too many times on the same to no avail from the authors).

Regards,
Greg



--

================================================================

Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...