IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Time] TIME BoF not approved

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 13 June 2014 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 1F1751A039B for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 02:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 EJzynou8CzCz for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 02:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 483821A038C for <time@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 02:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (unknown [112.208.107.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB97E18013E2 for <time@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:34:15 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <539AC593.4060200@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:34:11 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: time@ietf.org
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8454B41E@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <539ABB74.3090109@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <539ABB74.3090109@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/qzJRwiodk65P3EYXTeodAJwzVNA
Subject: Re: [Time] TIME BoF not approved
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: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:34:20 -0000

Benoit,

On 2014-06-13 10:51, Benoit Claise wrote:
> If we decompose OAM:
>      data plane:
>          - some part of OAM are embedded and will remain embedded
>          - some part of OAM are not embedded: Connectivity Verification
> (CV), Path Verification and Continuity Checks (CC), Path Discovery /
> Fault Localization, Performance Monitoring, etc.

Isn't it a further problem that what is embedded for one data-plane
technology might no be it for another?

/Loa

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email