IETF Logo Mail Archive

[OPSAWG] A question on OAM section in draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 28 August 2021 02:56 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 ACF473A28C1; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.837
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.837 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, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, 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 a1KK9aJRqswA; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com (mail-ej1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) (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 0A4E63A28C0; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id lc21so17976334ejc.7; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=M7lSKG7jdaRpkMf7K1UlSJes0faO5SNQoqwpK3psdK0=; b=AkCsRwWdJz9BN50CqDl25snVlxDVFIx/Wo4ysAWeW/tcF3HIRxn0rtdW0LtuTNTUoL IcmXNBZ8qVk93src1toK7Wp5unB4wwTMaOJYGQItaAJaVzMomgi3BGh4uWa3B048UDla 9pf4sBAN/zjrJG1tXnZgT3Y3O9HOLdh6leLwSi0iGLllfyHutN4SNHWFd+Kq2EUrn0D1 y9c6NLo8gghMEX1OsVDH2903NOqdO/c/jYrraQ9m1rwMAuDPpDXvHhEVOrKfJCNa9Ji2 VPX2xCLtotf1bp6jNe3ctx57LuadeiheNF3+9c13YYchqqDQJ1nqee7+FXgkoJImFp2t fIQw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=M7lSKG7jdaRpkMf7K1UlSJes0faO5SNQoqwpK3psdK0=; b=pj4tAsuq6ISH0ZV3znFPsTHlaUuCr2k413rnJzfQtzj61fod35PBJIu4PXL6gdl5xE IydyWqt4f9okTIt0MAOXqtHJJWicI/znFNrHeWeoFl/k8vkMXiIWCESzY3p6OeNWZqWN o6OLH4Sh18lpK87sLGi6CepCXMzC3JoVKGVw86BMRyTptRcqsYvUP4EhnT53aCGuZbMk W1yEpiPkZs9oeMGNR9a48T4sicErwKGRF8F9UMYPM3cfzHVLNKJPACqggeVO0b7B7Iuq 5dz4ELyIP//bN2IFVhhXYYmfgvIsD48RHdo5bn1A+5MayPLqN5uyV6IiuNpj0xa4GhI0 jT1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335IkN176qTQ3gmosFk1NWxlShTZPG8p8fELh98yehMoQwAN9hP dT/XluB25S7ch54f/lxXpzD1isbaf3fBgapkUimGwdXs4Rc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzXTdmbhZvzx8xvr5rMdGieVjdgBJA29y7qS6nKUv6Uv7uwGSacw3Xkmv5454j9rUU7eQ6KZWNl53N5Sh9dLs4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2817:: with SMTP id r23mr12862627ejc.285.1630119390427; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:56:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUUbdsUz1=R=+Oq8K5uCVTHNUXA5P9ZMQ6qnnCEA_LgLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm@ietf.org, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000353e4b05ca95bf6b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/kbJsF05ne-n9BNgHaP5ds-3xfA8>
Subject: [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: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 02:56:39 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email