Re: [Time] TIME proposal in OPS-Area meeting and RTGWG meeting

Qin Wu <> Fri, 22 August 2014 06:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BFD1A008B for <>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.418
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WmYxqHgfrrZY for <>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DDDA1A0077 for <>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BIM81306; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:01:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:01:50 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:01:44 +0800
From: Qin Wu <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: TIME proposal in OPS-Area meeting and RTGWG meeting
Thread-Index: Ac+mZLRdcwchI1ZcRcO1nl5LVG7l8gXaVjEQ
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:01:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845BACC0nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: Benoit Claise <>
Subject: Re: [Time] TIME proposal in OPS-Area meeting and RTGWG meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Transport Independent OAM in Multi-Layer network Entity \(TIME\) discussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:01:56 -0000

Hi, Folks:

Sorry for late followup.

We had a good discussion in RTGWG and OPSAWG meeting.
Opsawg meeting minutes haven’t been posted yet.

People concerned a lot about defining one GOAM protocol in the data plane.
There have already had a lot of work in RTGWG to discuss using Generic TLV
and Header extension to carry OAM information. Some other effort can be seen in ITU-T.

Another concern is if multi-layer management plane consolidation will also cause
Crossing layer boundary introduced by inter-layer operation.

Based on the discussion in both RTGWG/OPSAWG meeting and in the corridors,
We feel look into multi-layer OAM management is good direction and complimentary
to what has been done in RTG area regarding data plane OAM(e.g.,Overlay OAM).

To address concern raised in the meeting, we propose to focus on management plane consolidation and
use layer independent OAM management to replace transport independent OAM.

We believe looking into layer independent OAM management and stitching different layer OAMs
can provide better OAM visibility.
To achieve this, one possible approach is to apply CFM like model to all the existing OAM technologies, then
We can model different various OAM protocol in the same way.
The problem statement draft and use case draft will be updated soon.

The mailing list will be updated as well. We have sent a request to AD.


发件人: Time [] 代表 Qin Wu
发送时间: 2014年7月23日 18:55
主题: [Time] TIME proposal in OPS-Area meeting and RTGWG meeting

Hi, folks:
Just want to remind we have two presentations on TIME Proposal in opsawg meeting and rtgwg meeting.
0900-1130  Morning Session I
Ontario     OPS                    opsawg      Operations and Management Area Working Group WG - Combined with OPSAREA

1520-1650  Afternoon Session II

Ballroom          RTG         rtgwg                 Routing Area Working Group WG

If you want to know the latest progress and status of TIME proposal, please join us.
Your comments/thoughts/concerns are also appreciated.