Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 30 August 2021 13:48 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5855F3A1297; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 06:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 THcLycia0w5w; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 06:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x634.google.com (mail-ej1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87FA23A1292; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 06:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x634.google.com with SMTP id me10so31262228ejb.11; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 06:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bS3LUeOcTuap27atC9d86Q2wlK9J/wnvdxhpW5uf9ik=; b=hV6UvLtjqVYamIW6Yh8IgScvkQlFWMOl9cjIPQ0/izRZSRyu5Mbt2dzeZMsvMVW98a /c5pX2hcB+dqDFj66w7I8JL87sDHjEChNuk2XmnqYkGvvXxw5xc+4Vh6x2enXJs8xEqO 8HgAWtfsnhEj8oxWMdra5i4yRefUmis2uK7QjbxnN1pS5nZrZEqDrgHMTKkOMKHKnkWX nuyaXgNyT4XOX6o7Ku/nIZZX0NjDwvgEaD3lbAidDdYSYVksu4SNlcZ7cR4Sms+cxLVH HVuInJL4I+S5jVvKvD23p6H31/1Imu3Z1X1reBLclbdjcGVmo+UJZvGRr4HcumsodW99 W6kA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bS3LUeOcTuap27atC9d86Q2wlK9J/wnvdxhpW5uf9ik=; b=IOWoUCAl9hqOM21tp79cKvnIFTGiF4z4gQvVG/njrb+SZ8fi9FA5ghg71IE8l6m6Oe ugwDX5Q3fNEh5GgnPd+z8VfpL7NzUf3uWGIp0oIYDXZI0ZH8p1YMx8wvWjRouNxU0a0V 6fvH3Dk0hHzDySK8MJKZf95nfNhaeNct9dOnRw3SozP7vn56zHV1mEWhj23xrQ3H30bZ 8KX9Qa1yNNtvz+iaVFyQUfsdkrja41+/7yLpqCQaqCZBldyDM+vwjxiLyXBA4BB4rU16 ZvEQjadNm5zJxXVCC1ZqQyfH4Nxs+PHQ9DeHfCKL4c+m2aM+90FJ2bOXFdWXVuVu5SJR v2mA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533yIjH8aNLwJB2KLPCOi/79906puB4M9Hle9Kf0wNX+lgHm9CWm w5+LHX/bASYhxHps4JeqDW5QwzmwfVUxb4EmCWes/lVYfKc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+LVfcxTQiVMcAAgCxjWpJIRLpqzv3jQlHh1t/TVtym2IYcJGXyhvgJX0rhkHLLlSQzb4Pj1dLbmJtb1C6bU8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2174:: with SMTP id rl20mr12689262ejb.199.1630331296408; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 06:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmUUbdsUz1=R=+Oq8K5uCVTHNUXA5P9ZMQ6qnnCEA_LgLA@mail.gmail.com> <5697_1630325964_612CCCCC_5697_162_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353E5905@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <5697_1630325964_612CCCCC_5697_162_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353E5905@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 06:48:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWguAR0PvLnea7SNmBYTT5GMY2a4ubenULMDpmfpK90xA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Med Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm@ietf.org>, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c9ec9105cac715ea"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/j2wFZ3o9b45k-QD-aowHO-7CoEY>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:48:26 -0000
Hi Med, thank you for your detailed feedback; much appreciated. I think that I now understand better the philosophy of the model. But I will note that RFC 5880 does not cover RFC 7880 and 8562 (both have updated RFC 5880). It seems that adding bfd-session-type could be a very useful enhancement to the OAM container. Values for the new parameter should reflect values defined for bfd.SessionType in RFCs 7880, 8562, and 8563: - SBFDInitiator; - SBFDReflector; - PointToPoint; - MultipointHead; - MultipointTail; - MultipointClient And my apologies for my late comments. Regards, Greg On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 5:19 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > Thank you for checking the OAM part and for sharing this comment. > > > > As you can read in both sections 4 and 5, this model is ** not a device > configuration model **. The focus is on aspects that can be triggered by > service requests and managed by the network controller. This network view > of the service will be then enriched (with other sources such as local > templates/profiles/defaults) to derive the exhaustive configuration that > will be enforced in involved devices to deliver the requested service. > > > > With that rationale in mind, you can understand why we don’t import device > models but point to the authoritative RFCs for aspects that we think make > sense to be tweaked at the network-level. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com] > *Envoyé :* samedi 28 août 2021 04:56 > *À :* draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm@ietf.org; opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>; > rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> > *Objet :* A question on OAM section in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm > > > > Dear Authors, > > thank you for your work on this document. I've read the draft and have a > question, and a suggestion. Section 7.6.4 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm#section-7.6.4> describes > how BFD is controlled in vpn-common. I've noticed that you use references > to RFC 5880. While that is the basis for all subsequent BFD documents, for > BFD YANG data model draft-ietf-bfd-yang > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/> may be more > useful. Perhaps the container oam can re-use grouping base-cfg-parms. > > What are your thoughts? > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > >
- [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… tom petch
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… tom petch
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-i… mohamed.boucadair