Re: [Time] TIME BoF not approved

Hi, Benoit:
Thanks for sharing IAB/IESG concerns to us.
I am glad IAB/IESG agree this is the real problem.
Thanks for your confirming to offer us a chance in the combined OPSAWG/OPS area meeting.
Also Thanks Adrian offer us another chance to present this topic in the RTGWG meeting.
We will keep on working on the proposal and try our best to address issues raised in IESG/IAB.

Regards!
-Qin
发件人: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2014年6月13日 16:51
收件人: Qin Wu; time@ietf.org
抄送: joelja@bogus.com; Adrian Farrel; Alia Atlas
主题: Re: [Time] TIME BoF not approved

Dear all,

As you know (it has been documented at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ directly after the call on Wednesday), the TIME BoF has not been approved.
It would actually be appropriate for the responsible AD to explain what was discussed during the BoF coordination call, and the reasons why this BoF was declined. So here am I.

First of all, it's true that each time there is a new protocol, engineers jump into the new sand box and create their own unique OAM way.  And there is a  multiplication of slight different ways to perform similar tasks. With my OPS perceptive, performance metrics come to mind. This is an issue.
If we decompose OAM:
    data plane:
        - some part of OAM are embedded and will remain embedded
        - some part of OAM are not embedded: Connectivity Verification (CV), Path Verification and Continuity Checks (CC), Path Discovery / Fault Localization, Performance Monitoring, etc.
        - can we have generic OAM protocol?
     management plane:
        - configuration
So there is possible consolidation here.

It's also true that OAM will be key in a SFC environment. An extra difficulty is that OAM across certain entities might be involving different layers.

The IAB/IESG had the following concerns
- not enough public discussion on the topic
- not enough support, even from the proponents listed on the WIKI
Note: draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam, posted June 5th, might be one reason.

In conclusion: the problem is real, but we can't conclude there is enough interest and preparation at this point in time.

There is always a big question mark with consolidated management or oam solutions is whether the industry is truly interested in consolidation, or wants to compete with different solutions. This was raised but not discussed as the BoF coordination call objective is to take a decision on granting BoF time, and not to debate the topic).

However, to evaluate interest, we will be allocating time in the combined OPSAWG/OPS area meeting.
Another aspect of OAM sits in the routing area. Discussing with Adrian Farrel, he could try to find some time for you in the routing area or RTGWG meeting.

Regards, Benoit
Hi,
Our proposed BoF for Toronto called the TIME BoF did not get granted in yesterday IESG and IAB meeting given by insufficient public discussion on the list
and not enough preparation that had been done. Sorry about that.

I have talked with Benoit about possibility to present our idea in the opsawg before IESG and IAB meeting.
We plan to present this topic in the upcoming Toronto meeting, OPS-area and opsawg joint session.
We will keep on working on the drafts we already have.
I have got a lot of messages offline from subscribers on this list and they told me they are very excited about this work initiative.
We expect more discussion on this mailing list.

If you have any proposals, suggestions or good ideas, please don’t hesitate to drop a message on the list or to me directly.

Regards!
-Qin

_______________________________________________

Time mailing list

Time@ietf.org<mailto:Time@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/time