Re: [Lime] Call for Adoption: draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-06

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 23/08/2015 04:43, Tom Taylor wrote:
> For the record, I support adoption of this document as a WG draft. 
> There are changes I want to see in it, but these can come about 
> through ordinary WG process. This is a first call, not a last call. 
Thanks Tom. This is an important point.
Adopting a document as WG item means that the WG considers it is a good 
basis for the WG deliverable. It also implies that the document now 
belongs to the WG, and the WG can and should improve it based on the 
group consensus. Greg's list of concerns could be the basis used in an 
issue tracker.

Regards, Benoit
> As to the points Greg puts forward below, I think his subtext is that 
> if there is inconsistency between the LIME model and the work done in 
> the MPLS WG, it is the LIME model that has to change. Obviously there 
> is room for negotiation, but I believe the LIME charter gives LIME the 
> priority here.
>
> Tom Taylor
>
> On 21/08/2015 12:32 PM, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>> I do not support adoption of this document as WG item.
>>
>> I believe that until Applicability of Generic YANG Data Model for layer
>> Independent OAM Management demonstrates that the proposed model indeed
>> is common among OAM technologies developed at IETF, e.g. IP, IP/MPLS,
>> MPLS-TP, and TRILL, beyond just YANG customization mechanisms adopting
>> this draft as WG item is premature. And the applicability document has
>> not demonstrated that yet as you can see from the attached comments to
>> the  Applicability of the draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model and couple
>> more generic notes:
>>
>>   * Operations, Administration and Maintenance address Fault Management
>>     and Performance Monitoring of the FCAPS. If the scope of the
>>     document does not include both then I suggest not to refer to is as
>>     OAM but perhaps On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity
>>     Verification, i.e. ping and traceroute, Common YANG model;
>>   * section 4 is more about general YANG extensibility than of the
>>     proposed OAM YANG data model;
>>   * IP/MPLS OAM not being separated from MPLS-TP OAM;
>>   * Performance Monitoring arbitrary being left outside the scope for
>>     some technologies, e.g. Ethernet;
>>   * often Service OAM being presented as Transport OAM, e.g. VPLS, NVO3.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>          Greg
>>
>> *From:*Lime [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Carlos
>> Pignataro (cpignata)
>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 08, 2015 1:12 PM
>> *To:* [e-mail]
>> *Cc:* [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* [Lime] Call for Adoption: draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-06
>>
>> LIME,
>>
>>
>> This email starts a two-week poll on
>> adopting draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-06 [1] as a LIME working group
>> item.
>>
>> Please send comments to the list and state if you support adoption
>> or not (in the later case, please also state the reasons).
>>
>> This poll runs until ** August 24th, 2015 **.
>>
>> We are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft,
>> to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
>> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>>
>> *If you are listed as a document author or contributor*, please respond
>> to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any 
>> relevant IPR.
>>
>> The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
>> each author and contributor.
>>
>> If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then
>> please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has
>> not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Ron Bonica / Carlos Pignataro
>> LIME co-chairs
>>
>> [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lime mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lime mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime
> .
>