Dear Authors, et. al,
thank you for your dedication to this work. Please kindly consider my
comments, as I've shared them January 31st, for the IETF LC :
- this document introduces YANG data model of connection-oriented OAM
protocols. I couldn't find the definition or reference to normative
definition of the connection-oriented OAM. As we've discussed, I
believe that the definition of the channel forwarding in G.800 in
section 6.3.1, specifically for connection-oriented packet switching,
is the one we can use similarly to the definition of connectionless
OAM in draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam. And the fact that both
documents share one source of definitions, in my view, is advantage of
consistent dictionary.
- "This is the base identy of technology types which are
TRILL,MPLS-TP,vpls etc" Had VPLS been characterized as CO-PS? Not to
get into the discussion, perhaps stop after MPLS-TP be acceptable. And
I encourage to omit other references to VPLS in the document:
- "... or for VPLS this can be per VPLS instance [RFC6136]."
- " a VRF for VPLS,"
- what is the benefit to have specific ipv4-address and ipv6-address
in 'choice mep-address' rather than ip-address imported from
inet:ip-address?
- I think that 'leaf packet-size' is related to packet padding, not
the actual size of the test packet as there's always minimum size
determined by the corresponding technology and thus the packet size
cannot be smaller than the minimum size of, for example, LBM. Current
range for the leaf packet-size in rpc continuity-check is 0...10000
and in rpc continuity-verification the range is 64 ... 10000 (why such
inconsistency?). Test packet of 0 bytes doesn't seem practical while
test packet with 0 bytes of padding/payload does. And though we'd like
to use default for zero-touch (almost zero-touch), this is very
technology-specific parameter (compare Ethernet LBM and MPLS LSP
Ping).
Nits:
- s/interface)/interface)./
- consistency in using YANG vs. Yang throughout the document should be achieved.
- s/../maintenance-domain]/co-oam:mas/co-oam:ma[/../ maintenance-domain]/co-oam: mas/co-oam:ma/
- s/CoS field in MPLS-TP/TC field in MPLS-TP/
thank you for your dedication to this work. Please kindly consider my
comments, as I've shared them January 31st, for the IETF LC :
- this document introduces YANG data model of connection-oriented OAM
protocols. I couldn't find the definition or reference to normative
definition of the connection-oriented OAM. As we've discussed, I
believe that the definition of the channel forwarding in G.800 in
section 6.3.1, specifically for connection-oriented packet switching,
is the one we can use similarly to the definition of connectionless
OAM in draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectio
documents share one source of definitions, in my view, is advantage of
consistent dictionary.
- "This is the base identy of technology types which are
TRILL,MPLS-TP,vpls etc" Had VPLS been characterized as CO-PS? Not to
get into the discussion, perhaps stop after MPLS-TP be acceptable. And
I encourage to omit other references to VPLS in the document:
- "... or for VPLS this can be per VPLS instance [RFC6136]."
- " a VRF for VPLS,"
- what is the benefit to have specific ipv4-address and ipv6-address
in 'choice mep-address' rather than ip-address imported from
inet:ip-address?
- I think that 'leaf packet-size' is related to packet padding, not
the actual size of the test packet as there's always minimum size
determined by the corresponding technology and thus the packet size
cannot be smaller than the minimum size of, for example, LBM. Current
range for the leaf packet-size in rpc continuity-check is 0...10000
and in rpc continuity-verification the range is 64 ... 10000 (why such
inconsistency?). Test packet of 0 bytes doesn't seem practical while
test packet with 0 bytes of padding/payload does. And though we'd like
to use default for zero-touch (almost zero-touch), this is very
technology-specific parameter (compare Ethernet LBM and MPLS LSP
Ping).
Nits:
- s/interface)/interface)./
- consistency in using YANG vs. Yang throughout the document should be achieved.
- s/../maintenance-domain]/co-oa
- s/CoS field in MPLS-TP/TC field in MPLS-TP/
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:07 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Layer Independent OAM Management in
the Multi-Layer Environment WG (lime) to consider the following document: -
'Generic YANG Data Model for Connection Oriented Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocols'
<draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-04.txt> as Proposed
Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2018-02-19. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document presents a base YANG Data model for connection oriented
OAM protocols. It provides a technology-independent abstraction of
key OAM constructs for such protocols. The model presented here can
be extended to include technology specific details. This guarantees
uniformity in the management of OAM protocols and provides support
for nested OAM workflows (i.e., performing OAM functions at different
levels through a unified interface)
The YANG model in this document conforms to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture defined in
[I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores].
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connec tion-oriented-oam-model/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connec tion-oriented-oam-model/ballot /
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
rfc6905: Requirements for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) (Informational - IETF stream)
_______________________________________________
Lime mailing list
Lime@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime