Re: [Lime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-11.txt> (Generic YANG Data Model for Connectionless Operations, Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocols) to Proposed Standard

[Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Greg,

I agree with you that the current (version 18) text in section 3.3 is very confusing.

Authors:

If I look at the definition of TP in section 2.2 I think a TP is similar
to a maintenance point as defined for Ethernet. Am I correct?

I don't understand why there are TPs with no neighboring TPs,
where will their initiated OAM test be sent? Or where are OAM
tests they react to initiated?

It is IMHO also possible that there are TPs with a neighboring
TP before AND a neighboring TP after the current TP.

Please explain.

Regards, Huub.

---------

Dear All,

I was under impression that that question of oam-neighboring-tps has been discussed and since authors couldn't produce technical rationale for this object we've agreed that it will be removed altogether from the grouping connectionless-oam-tps. But authors just changed name from level to position but had missed to synchronize descriptions in the model and in section 3.3. The later still refers to vertical layers:

                     "List of related neighboring test points in adjacent
                     layers up and down the stack for the same interface
                     that are related to the current test point.";

while the model insists that it is peering relationship:

        description
          "The relative position
           of neighboring test point
           corresponding to the current
           test point. Level 0 indicates no neighboring
           test points placed before or after the current

           test point in the same layer.-1 means there is
           a neighboring test point placed before the current
           test point in the same layer and +1 means there is
           a neighboring test point placed after the current
           test point in same layer.";

So, what is it? Perhaps it is time to remove list oam-neighboring-tps altogether also because having it s fixed size list is plain wrong. (Sorry for being so blunt but I commented too many times on the same to no avail from the authors).

Regards,

Greg

-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...