Re: [Time] Comments on draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 30 June 2014 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F3A1A020B for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SfBN-AsysrqN for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B733A1A020A for <time@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJK44318; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:28:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:28:26 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.155]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:28:22 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "time@ietf.org" <time@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam
Thread-Index: AQHPhsV4PNoK1eqKzUmLMkJ2UGYGQptvD1wwgAd6xMCAAodkoIAHIb4AgAFul3CAAZdycIABfKlQ///YUYCAATC64IACsUSAgAEkNpA=
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:28:22 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457B7B1@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.180]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457B7B1nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/oi-Ug7lrb0QXufNZXUimwO28Nto
Cc: "Tissa Senevirathne \(tsenevir\)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Time] Comments on draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam
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, 30 Jun 2014 11:28:32 -0000

Hi,
发件人: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) [mailto:tsenevir@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2014年6月30日 9:24
收件人: Qin Wu
主题: RE: Comments on draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam

Hi Qin

I went through, why are we combining architecture and problem statement to the same document. I think best way forward is to get the problem very clearly defined and have architecture as a separate document. The reason is some may (e.g. my self) will agree with the problem but not necessarily with the architecture.

[Qin]: Thanks for general comments on draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam. Yes, We did plan to split the architecture part from problem statement draft at the next step,. But not now.
In this version, we put architecture and problem statement together in the same draft.

The following from section 4, is kind of a time bomb. This sounds more like a layer violation. Which probable in my opinion needed to be adjusted

   o  Any two Network Elements that exchange OAM information do not need
      to be at the same layer.

[Qin]:Yes, this sentence is a little bit misleading. What we are trying to say

a.       Any network element can use different technologies and
      corresponding OAM on the same layer

b. or Any two network element may provide service delivery at different

      layer


We will make this clear in the ps draft.