Re: [Time] Editor's proposed draft of TIME/LIME Problem Statement

Melinda Shore <> Mon, 08 September 2014 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94B91A6EDE for <>; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 20:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1nHX446GMENl for <>; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AE7F1A6EE5 for <>; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g10so6935642pdj.10 for <>; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 20:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LRgKQnIE8+IOIzzY43m6dhkcTSVlX56hYsL8UrBkCfI=; b=wVX02UPbFyoHzLZuqHNc0+7A8JAN6nIc7HBMawzTPuhVVou1Py+PogXg536Rvkvu3j 3L/KFggD1hjlu4AOda1u6ZzRaCqE0cUYLvGLjuH0kbHZbGCSA4f4JklwxUhXl1TYTIqP amZ3IDPz5IoiSh1Bfl/CyC/KdhZZUQ4Z5C8oDQSiYCTts+Aa2WVFlj/ggam+V8hvkwkW j3O2ZlDfdPIRo89y3IzGiRu8yvilRd3cL0ZQpKSyxhFGwO1rmEGiyNxLtBQVyW4nC2wj JoyHcZVq8OOWe9Q3rRiIqRkIA7RcBMeQeVRg7GWq5uHP7iA7+1j/Z4T71MHoWXwutF23 T4Og==
X-Received: by with SMTP id zx5mr892600pab.133.1410146522566; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 20:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spandex.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id hz4sm6379630pbc.22.2014. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Sep 2014 20:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 19:22:00 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Time] Editor's proposed draft of TIME/LIME Problem Statement
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: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 03:22:05 -0000

On 9/7/14 4:30 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:
> 1.1 A Vision of Layer and Technology Independent Management

I just had a thorough read of a recent version of the problem statement
and I think that the terminology around the problem really needs to be
tweaked.  In some sense we've already got layer- and technology-
independent management, in the form of several highly modular protocols
that can convey management and/or configuration information for all
sorts of devices and protocols.  What's unique here is that there's
a proposal to path-couple management messages and possibly have them
intercepted by management modules in varying sorts of devices along that
path.  It's been proposed before (for example, I proposed it here:
draft-shore-nls-tl-06.txt) but has never been developed.  What's
significant about this proposal that it attempts to deal with managing
and diagnosing problems that may be related to topology, perhaps
without foreknowledge of topology or routing.

I'd try to be clearer about why this is interesting.  "Layer and
Technology Independence" is one aspect of it but not one that's
unique to this proposal.