Re: [Lime] Comments on draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-05

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Huub:
Thanks for your valuable comments.

发件人: Lime [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Huub van Helvoort
发送时间: 2015年6月27日 16:24
收件人: [e-mail]
主题: Re: [Lime] Comments on draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-05

All,

Some additional remarks on draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-05

In the introduction section:
1.  monitor networks --> 1. monitor connections
this because actually the connections in the network are monitored.

[Qin]:My understanding is besides monitoring connections, we also need to keep track of connectionless network to provide consistent reporting, representation when
We deal with both connection oriented network and connectionless network for the end to end path.

2. isolation --> localisation
it is not always possible to isolate a fault, but if one can locate it
one can take proper consequent actions (like isolation)

[Qin]: Yes, that is true when we don’t respect layer boundary for different OAM technologies.
Your proposed changes sounds good to me.

3. measure performance --> 3. monitor performance (loss, delay).
monitor implies that consequent actions may/will be taken/

[Qin]: Good point and agree.

Proper expansion of MEP (from 802.1):

3.93 Maintenance association End Point (MEP)
Proper expansion of MIP (from 802.1Q):

3.98 Maintenance domain Intermediate Point (MIP)

[Qin]:Correct, IEEE802.1 Q uses these expansion for MEP and MIP, but RFC7174 uses other simplified expansion.

I think we should choose either one to make consistent.
Best regards, Huub.

BTW: the latter two remarks are also applicable to
draft-tissa-nvo3-oam-fm-02