[Time] OAM Initiative: Situation

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

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)












·We should preserve the existing OAM technology implementations and 
behavior "on-the-wire"

·We will propose a unified management interface for multiple OAM 
technologies that will expose a common set of management interface 
capabilities for different OAM technologies (e.g. ping, traceroute)

·The management interface implementation will convert the defined common 
management capabilities to the OAM technology specific operations

·We will model OAM operations management using YANG following

·Specific OAM technology models will augment the generic OAM management 
model

·Cisco will support continued development of technology specific OAM 
standards within the appropriate IETF technology working groups

·We will promote generic OAM in the IETF OPS Working Group

·We will propose a set of guidelines new OAM technology implementations 
should follow

·We will investigate methods for scaling the return of large volumes of 
OAM data from the network