[Time] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps-00.txt

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Tue, 09 September 2014 13:49 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C2F1A02EC for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 06:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R4esBO6T5w9C for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 06:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 740911A034D for <time@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 06:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id rd18so2688951iec.25 for <time@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:49:46 -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:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j21QOPvwQcOXk+0PoNktzN2l+kyiiPi5ZKJRpOM92Ck=; b=hnXdq44KtscC0/XUqfnMUR4M3CxkhwIjYPySYxaFlJpAUNU+qXgxVxSrEvqpQPiBZ2 AD4my39zPyxmYuumRTSzNiRUaEnuWSjSJ1OBgNdTZ3Dr/f0jygw4qXE01EQZMj1322aa bBK36ttuSmH71APFJlwfbBecYOgU5HC2CNAwkfYt5Iq+ASDqz6Ifkg3ltNzmauTSuLLS 3Rf+jD0DUOxwMX3AjqEKK7ISkH3HGWl6Of6iaZubD5kY7GE7zcBPtVj/OW62IQslXVdp 5ovNaQiqa6v1gory0csF9M6p6SNCqWPcg46ac7ciBJNd/p6/uZuzMd3SCCFa7mj+WS9a 4Avw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ru4mr32347359igb.18.1410270586849; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j4sm11880532igx.20.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <540F0579.6050608@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:49:45 -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" <time@ietf.org>
References: <20140909133445.14121.45700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140909133445.14121.45700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20140909133445.14121.45700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/3wzny0rivA0t8LBViRwxXVoE3Qg
Cc: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Mishael Wexler <mishael.wexler@huawei.com>
Subject: [Time] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps-00.txt
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: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 13:49:49 -0000

I've submitted the Editor's Proposal for the Problem Statement. As I 
said earlier, this could provide source material for the charter, but 
basically appears to be overtaken by events. I did notice an editorial 
glitch in Sec. 6, where I moved some terminology up to Sec. 2 but failed 
to clean up. I can fix that, but I think that's as far as we want to go 
for the moment.

Regarding authorship: I reverted to the technical definition of author. 
I understand that a lot of the text I worked with came from from Qin and 
Mishael in the first place. The list of Contributors indicates those 
people who added text or strongly influenced the development of the 
document. I'm sorry if anyone feels betrayed by these changes, but if 
the document does go further, I imagine the usual political adjustments 
to authorship will take place.

Tom Taylor

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for 
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:34:45 -0700
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>om>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>om>, 
Mishael Wexler <mishael.wexler@huawei.com>om>, T. Taylor 
<tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>om>, Mishael Wexler <mishael.wexler@huawei.com>om>, 
Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>

A new version of I-D, draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by T. Taylor and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps
Revision:	00
Title:		Problem Statement for Layer and Technology Independent OAM in a 
Multi- Layer Environment
Document date:	2014-09-09
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		17

    Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms are
    critical building blocks in network operations.  They used for
    service fulfillment assurance, and for service diagnosis,
    troubleshooting, and repair.  The current practice is that many
    technologies rely on their own OAM protocols and procedures that are
    exclusive to a given layer.

    At present, there is little consolidation of OAM in the management
    plane or well-documented inter-layer OAM operation.  Vendors and
    operators dedicate significant resources and effort through the whole
    OAM life-cycle each time a new technology is introduced.  This is
    exacerbated when dealing with integration of OAM into overlay
    networks, which require better OAM visibility since there is no
    method to exchange OAM information between overlay and underlay.

    This document analyzes the problem space for multi-layer OAM in the
    management plane with a focus on layer and technology independent OAM
    management considerations.  It concludes that an attempt to define an
    architecture for consolidated management should be undertaken, and if
    this attempt satisfies key objectives, a gap analysis and a program
    of standardization should follow.


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat