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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 09 September 2014 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 3EC0D1A6FB2 for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 07:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.153
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 7YZXSmwz4bsS for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 07:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 486F01A6FB0 for <time@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 07:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2044; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1410273470; x=1411483070; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NEhGzBxZnblgpBN5d9wx24qLk2Z4BYq7hxp68VcEkP8=; b=h/HUAUT/7dHR/tE56m2oemT9K5fdjCr7o3Fh4bMzykQYka+m1sIbpqOg lHY5MLJV470f/UZnpR7OsqUwfJsnZlTvJrJsitP7/zFcIIQ5AEc5ZTzz9 b0Ux/xC9pP3XDRLbdhBFb3gwXB/KPKaM4b1EIpKi6+tjpIkHapuMd9zQW w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEAH0QD1StJssW/2dsb2JhbABZ0w+DHwGBI3iEAwEBAQMBODYKBgsLGAkMCg8JAwIBAgFFBgEMCAEBiDYIvFgBF49UCoRCAQSYLYRGh0GNbYNjO4J+AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,491,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="167111657"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2014 14:37:47 +0000
Received: from [10.149.0.247] (dhcp-10-149-0-247.cisco.com [10.149.0.247]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s89EbjRO004022; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 14:37:45 GMT
Message-ID: <540F10B9.9090400@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:37:45 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>, time@ietf.org
References: <540B022E.3070601@cisco.com> <540D6249.205@cisco.com> <540DCD05.3030508@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <540DCD05.3030508@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/4vE4Sffz6VbxTP8yvD3YjDgA5ww
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: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:37:51 -0000

Hi Tom,

> 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. 
Exactly. Interesting that the problem statement changed along the time.
> 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?
This point was not discussed in details during the last meeting. Let's 
keep in mind that there were no BoF but two quick presentations in 
OPSAWG and the Routing Area.
My point is: shouldn't we start by walking before running, i.e. focusing 
first on consistent configuration, reporting, and presentation for the 
centralized management?

Regards, Benoit
>
> 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)
>>
> ...
> .
>