[Time] OAM Initiative: Situation

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 08 September 2014 08:01 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3781A6F39 for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 01:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.152
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.152 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, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lCHCSTTIyYKp for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 01:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD33F1A6F2E for <time@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 01:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8361; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1410163276; x=1411372876; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=Mi2j2+F3CVNfi+llyw0Q30uyXaFlL6JO3xJsdBf0xJw=; b=iuX2Hnre/BoOj7lrDrxUT2UIcD/Q66FHlUj52og0+FOtfwe9rzxzvN1h gNU1Cn+ZPvtsPK3UEtvGzGlrlzMPADWeQz1ixtOYxoICfj9GyzwstiNWi y0DLgUmB3E6KbTs4EzHyJ2fowH3sTcj75Fgs7LQk6hq4rsJLm1ewjvJSI 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEGAFhhDVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABYjQ7IawGBJXiEBAEBBG4LECwlDwJGBg0BBwEBiD67EgEXj00HhEwFmCyERodBjWuDYzuCfgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,485,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="169822432"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Sep 2014 08:01:14 +0000
Received: from [] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com []) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8881Doe006656; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:01:13 GMT
Message-ID: <540D6249.205@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:01:13 +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: "time@ietf.org" <time@ietf.org>
References: <540B022E.3070601@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <540B022E.3070601@cisco.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <540B022E.3070601@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030304070203090901020800"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/EltZSmlEqzWN1_nd20ZuL67bVlo
Cc: "ops-ads@tools.ietf.org" <ops-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [Time] OAM Initiative: Situation
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: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 08:01:18 -0000

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 

·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