|
Hello Carlos,
Thank you for the additional information.
As I mentioned I already looked at version 18 because that was
mentioned
in Gregs response.
I have understood that this draft was discussed in Singapore.
Unfortunately the agreed resolution was not reported on the list.
That is why I missed (part of) the discussion.
I will have no further comments.
Best regards, Huub.
-----------
Additionally, please see https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-17&url2=draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-18,
which shows the changes relevant to that specific comment.
I believe the authors are using text suggested by
Greg.
Like Benoit said, the document is approved and in
the RFC Editor queue:
Best,
—
Carlos Pignataro, carlos@xxxxxxxxx
“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully
understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."
Hello Benoit,
You reply:
I had not seen any response from the authors to the
email from Greg
(I checked the archive) so I assumed that the issue was
still being
discussed.
Other on-line comments were addressed by the authors.
I also checked for updates to version 18, but did not
find any, so I
don't know how the issue has been resolved.
So now I have to wait until the RFC is published.
Regards, Huub.
=========
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...
|