Re: [Lime] WG Last Call
Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 05 July 2016 03:55 UTC
Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 21E1712D0B5 for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.636
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 yhSyOijJTp1I for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 921A212D0F5 for <lime@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CSB15938; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 03:55:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.199) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:55:41 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.81]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:55:37 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lime@ietf.org" <lime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call
Thread-Index: AdHNeHo9mfLLAhikTCqAkzKOu/b2GQGTg5ygAKoBcUA=
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 03:55:37 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA85365E44@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <BLUPR0501MB2051737D8381B2F9B322F5EEAE2D0@BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221ABEDAA@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221ABEDAA@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.112]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA85365E44nkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020206.577B2FBF.0054, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.81, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: ee606ea6fa4b041c1863c9477cc9722a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/xhvqU6tAnWBaC9flWoITCm_3L0I>
Subject: Re: [Lime] WG Last Call
X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 03:55:49 -0000
Greg: Thank for your comments. I am confusing with the analogue given below. RFC6371 define ME as follows: “ Maintenance Entity (ME): Some portion of a transport path that requires management bounded by two points (called MEPs), and the relationship between those points to which maintenance and monitoring operations apply (details in Section 3.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6371#section-3.1>). ” ME is actually referred to a subpath between two measurement points, one example of ME is LSP or PW or a tunnel. RFC 6371 further define MEG as: “ Maintenance Entity Group (MEG): The set of one or more maintenance entities that maintain and monitor a section or a transport path in an OAM domain. ” Which align with MA definition give in the IEEE802.1q amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.1ag as follows: “ Maintenance Association (MA) Defined as a "set of MEPs, all of which are configured with the same MAID (Maintenance Association Identifier) ” It looks it is apparent that MA is equivalent to MEG since two measurement points constitute ME, therefore a set of maintenance entities can be interpreted as as a set of measurement points as well. Therefore MA+MD is equivalent to MEG, both measurement point and measurement segment/ME should be under MA or MEG. -Qin 发件人: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Gregory Mirsky 发送时间: 2016年7月2日 2:58 收件人: Ronald Bonica; lime@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Dear Authors, WG chairs, et. al, please find my comments to the latest version of the document below. ・ I think that the section 7.2 that discusses MPLS-TP OAM YANG module must reference YANG data model for MPLS-TP draft-zhang-mpls-tp-yang-oam at least as Informational reference (to avoid dependency if it is Normative one); ・ I think that since MPLS-TP OAM uses different terminology if compared with the draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model, mapping must be established in the document under review. For example, Maintenance Domain is analogous to Maintenance Entity Group, and Maintenance Association is analogous to Maintenance Entity. ・ section 7.2.2 o “Meg-Id parameter under MA data node will be selected for MPLT-TP OAM model.” I think that you’ve chosen the wrong ID. MA is analogous to ME, not MEG. Please check with draft-zhang-mpls-tp-yang-oam. o s/ MPLT-TP/MPLS-TP/ ・ section 7.2.2.1 o “In MPLS-TP, one example of connectivity-context is a 20 bit MPLS label.” Labels in MPLS-TP don’t have context as these are transport, not application labels and are unique only for allocating LSR. ・ section 7.2.4 “…are extended with MPLS-TP specific such as exp …” I assume you were referring to Traffic Class (TC) field. Again, please refer to draft-zhang-mpls-tp-yang-oam for RPC definitions. In conclusion, I’m glad that most of my earlier comments been addressed and thank you authors for thorough consideration. But I think that this document needs another version. Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ronald Bonica Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 10:57 AM To: lime@ietf.org<mailto:lime@ietf.org> Subject: [Lime] WG Last Call Folks, This message begins a WG last call for draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-06. Last call ends on July 7, 2016. Ron _______________________________________________ Lime mailing list Lime@ietf.org<mailto:Lime@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Varma, Eve (Nokia - US)
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Gregory Mirsky
- [Lime] Fwd: WG Last Call Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call wangzitao
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Qin Wu
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Yuji Tochio
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Yuji Tochio
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Ronald Bonica
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Varma, Eve (Nokia - US)
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call wangzitao
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- [Lime] Fwd: WG Last Call Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- [Lime] Fwd: WG Last Call Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call wangzitao
- Re: [Lime] WG Last Call Yuji Tochio
- [Lime] WG Last Call Ronald Bonica