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

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Agree with Greg.

I have particular concern about this statement in the draft:

All implementations that follow the YANG framework presented in this
   document MUST implement the generic YANG model presented here.

This seems to stipulate a requirement that neither YANG as a language nor any existing technology requires, except maybe CFM itself. Where is this stipulation coming from and why is it a MUST?

> On Aug 24, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Varma, Eve L (Eve) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I concur with Greg’s concerns.
>  
> Best regards,
> Eve
>  
> From: Lime [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 12:33 PM
> To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Lime] Call for Adoption: draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-06
>  
> 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] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 1:12 PM
> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[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/ <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model/>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Lime mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime>
Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]