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

Tom Taylor <> Wed, 10 September 2014 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22EAD1A0360 for <>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 19:34:00 -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 y1S7hy7CvNFQ for <>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 19:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E4131A0348 for <>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 19:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y20so292330ier.2 for <>; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 19:33:57 -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=TQlRYq5ry6ku5yU/UyvQxFUDiN5VNY7aiE6mUzwK8Xc=; b=YAx5UjZDeWW/gcGMlmKPMkn06a5H7PzqrtDT+pTfWmqF6VDvIX2kz58Zt84vAdIbMG Rs0HLq+ibN4K7Ckk9zvFa4Rdkl/J6RVM2V6454NxXuwWLUSJFKE5vJ/w0stBsTnmDipd +b6sJLx0Pke+1ibHikmKFObYhtGtKfASQgPCFr2TLaiiAtgKdczJNF7VsiIK8X8+PP7v ASGizh4YM90a9Gm9tARX06JF1qX5GnF7Xmy8C97V5iOUcoZu/5GhAqEp4cSiDuagWwDH lTbxfjpwqJFvA+RNA1JVLPoJ4eVrjLWgwtX1cpAW+br7WCoRoT2+8vvO3WR+CQ+pI+le fkrg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u17mr2355264icl.20.1410316437487; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 19:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id w8sm859821igl.13.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Sep 2014 19:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:33:56 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <>,
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Time] OAM Initiative: Situation - Sketch of a charter
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: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:34:00 -0000

On 09/09/2014 10:37 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> 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.

[PTT] Personally, I'd be happy to go with discovery by a centralized 
management application as the objective.

>> 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?

[PTT] I had not intended to focus on Melinda's proposal in my note, but 
on the whole topic of discovery. In any event, I can see where discovery 
can be carved off, though it has to be done eventually.

> 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?

[PTT] Yes, this has clear priority given that there may be related work 
in progress already.

> 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)
>> ...
>> .