Re: [Time] TIME BoF not approved

Benoit Claise <> Fri, 13 June 2014 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929AC1A038C for <>; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 01:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.151
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HtwbT6D-FVUR for <>; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 01:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21FC01A030E for <>; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=11595; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1402649465; x=1403859065; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=VsLU/qrHFYu7WhWOESvhPcNbOon/pgQfCNB5+6tCN/I=; b=eFCWCCwSOU8C2Mx5sHYG86cO+uM57iMZWfwxBxk3K8Zsg2YQFugT+r5H mz0uMB/3p1C57TwfqEqcMTttzWTGfZDvCdan4meEAXJZAneEk3NFyMjoF 1Bxtgur43DNFtqLr50SES+HWfTnGPFq2MvEesCOvLBgFQkTJoDdyw/l5f A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.01,470,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="84060096"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2014 08:51:03 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5D8p2nl005413; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:51:02 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:51:00 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Qin Wu <>, "" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010101070004020009050403"
Cc: "" <>, Adrian Farrel <>, Alia Atlas <>
Subject: Re: [Time] TIME BoF not approved
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, 13 Jun 2014 08:51:08 -0000

Dear all,

As you know (it has been documented at 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