Re: [Time] OAM Initiative: Situation - Sketch of a charter

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Mon, 08 September 2014 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F5E1A8876 for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 yPknE5E-id3G for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 850311A8878 for <time@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id rl12so2339174iec.28 for <time@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XMtPf6ojXx3zRQtBG+5b/xGUdj3XP/1oEYsTZNubByE=; b=xpGmYYhrDt88RQoc7wfWCiSJLrmW4dfg20bZfgxOtBFcQ66whvbqGSPmLtZglnadXP 6xy3AlWIZ0yumsstLS4bUdHyfi6iNIreAumcgFmrSQmlMkHAgRV//rFG0pf3NDm99GrE vq67+0HzopgoZGlvykSsGJDnGBX0qIZquLdKrADKhj716d4TZYxyBGg4adtvpQJk3L16 wW4SOyyp7/eDVQpznUsJXctwr3dGnwaDwbXdJNGnyK9m2W3NZn1j96D6R7swMjk1DwhT 0Uer7msoKJA+UPAdSXvIHZJ87KzAiNLEjRf+Eht3C2Myw0tFNkpqiAuhUlfQkEtsKHtm NFgw==
X-Received: by 10.50.142.100 with SMTP id rv4mr24808718igb.43.1410190597809; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.97.175] ([67.210.160.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x9sm11256953igw.15.2014.09.08.08.36.37 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Sep 2014 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <540DCD05.3030508@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:36:37 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: time@ietf.org, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <540B022E.3070601@cisco.com> <540D6249.205@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <540D6249.205@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/1f1V0s8FVjgnoVPWlQHtKLCu4hs
Subject: Re: [Time] OAM Initiative: Situation - Sketch of a charter
X-BeenThere: time@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Transport Independent OAM in Multi-Layer network Entity \(TIME\) discussion list." <time.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/time>, <mailto:time-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/time/>
List-Post: <mailto:time@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:time-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/time>, <mailto:time-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:36:51 -0000

It seems to me, taking Melinda's remarks into account, that the one work 
item missing from this announcement is the means whereby management is 
tied together along a path. The original TIME/LIME proposal spoke in 
terms of discovery by a centralized management application. Melinda 
suggests path-coupled management messages, possibly intercepted by 
management modules in varying sorts of devices along that path. Would 
this be an appropriate item of exploration within the charter?

Tom Taylor

On 08/09/2014 4:01 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> [Let us call this "OAM Inititiave" for now, as the mailing list is being
> renamed from TIME to LIME]
>
> During the last IETF meeting, there were various discussions with
> different audiences regarding OAM.
>
> Here is what we concluded:
> 1. Building an OAM generic protocol is impractical for multiple reasons.
> 2. It is desirable to have an unified view of OAM information at each
> layer, in order to correlate information, and detect the faulty element
> in the network path
> 3.. Consistent configuration, reporting, and presentation for the OAM
> mechanisms makes sense.
> 4. Using YANG as a modeling language is a logical choice. Note that
> there are already some efforts in that direction
> 5. A set of guidelines for future OAM developments would be welcome for
> consistency sake
>
> We also believe that there is sufficient interest to start working on a
> charter proposal.
>
> Regards, Joel and Benoit (OPS ADs)
>
...