Re: [Time] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on YANG Service OAM models"

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

My opinion is that the IETF should be involved in the development of data models (using YANG or other Data Modeling Languages) only when these model IETF technologies (for example routing protocols). Data models (using YANG or other DMLs) that refer to technologies developed out of the IETF (like layer 2 protocols, or ITU-T OAM) should be developed by the respective organizations.

If Generic multi-layer OAM is defined by the IETF, a possible data model can be developed here.

Regards,

Dan



From: Time [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 9:27 AM
To: Benoit Claise; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Time] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on YANG Service OAM models"

Hi, Benoit:
My understanding to what MEF is doing regarding service OAM:

http://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_38.pdf

http://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_39.pdf

is

MEF_38 and MEF_39 are focus on Ethernet specific OAM Module development. They are not dealing with multi-layer OAM.

But MEF_38 and MEF_39 are two very good basis to define generic OAM Management Model, we should make an effort to refer to these documents rather than develop its own protocol.



In addition,

I don't think IETF should only provide YANG syntax and semantics for other SDOs to build various technology specific YANG Module,

IETF can also build various technology specific YANG Modules and technology independent YANG module (i.e., Generic OAM Management Model).

Let me know what you think about this?



Regards!

-Qin
发件人: Time [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Benoit Claise
发送时间: 2014年9月8日 16:16
收件人: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: [Time] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on YANG Service OAM models"

FYI.

Regards, Benoit


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:

New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on YANG Service OAM models"

Date:

Wed, 20 Aug 2014 13:08:06 -0700

From:

Liaison Statement Management Tool <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>

To:

<Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@[e-mail]><mailto:j.schoenwaelder@[e-mail]>, <-university.de>, Tom Nadeau <[e-mail]@ietfa.amsl.com><mailto:[e-mail]@ietfa.amsl.com>, <>@ietfa.amsl.com>

CC:

Benoit Claise <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, Joel Jaeggli <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, "Nan Chen" <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, Bill Bjorkman <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, Raghu Ranganathan <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>



Title: Liaison to IETF on YANG Service OAM models

Submission Date: 2014-07-31

URL of the IETF Web page: http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1346/



From: MEF (Mike Bencheck <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>)

To: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, Tom Nadeau <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>)

Cc: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>,Joel Jaeggli <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>,Nan Chen <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>,Bill Bjorkman <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>,Raghu Ranganathan <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>,[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]>

Response Contact: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Technical Contact:

Purpose: For information



Body: Dear Jürgen Schönwälder, Tom Nadeau, and Benoit Claise:



The MEF wants to communicate to the IETF NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) Working Group that MEF has existing YANG Service OAM Fault Monitoring (MEF 38) and Service OAM Performance Monitoring (MEF 39) specifications.



MEF 38 and MEF 39 are published specifications and can be found on the MEF public website at:



http://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_38.pdf



http://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_39.pdf



There appears to be some direct overlap with these specifications and the goals of the Working Group, specifically in the area of MD, MA (MEG) and MEP definitions as found in http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tissa-netmod-oam/.



We request that IETF review and consider using these models, if applicable. We look forward to feedback from you on this subject.



The MEF Technical Committee meets next in Atlanta in October 27-29, 2014.

Attachments:



    Liaison to IETF on YANG Service OAM models

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2014-07-31-mef-netmod-liaison-to-ietf-on-yang-service-oam-models-attachment-1.pdf



.