From nobody Thu Oct 2 03:54:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E361A8836; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 16:40:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8] autolearn=no 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 4aA5GarkkXbZ; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 16:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2741A8799; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 16:40:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Alissa Cooper" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141001234014.12951.34157.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 16:40:14 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/X43V3_Ck4zdbFrNIDFxfdYgddD8 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 03:54:41 -0700 Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: [Lime] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 23:40:15 -0000 Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The second architecture milestone seems aggressive given that the architecture is described as covering every technology and every layer. Harmonizing across all of those seems like it will be more than six months' worth of work. From nobody Thu Oct 2 08:27:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B514A1A1A0A; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:12:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 Ey3OY8XfjG72; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18371A19F8; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:11:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 08:11:59 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/QnX3kaSpizE1sfmJLA7eXnzXNz4 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 08:27:02 -0700 Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:12:09 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I would suggest that this WG also consider the potential impact of ciphertext becoming much more common in networks to be managed. It would be a pity if this work assumed that all or most data is cleartext. I'd say just adding a sentence that this is in scope for consideration would be enough. From nobody Thu Oct 2 08:42:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588F41A872B; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:42:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 6bOgzMxYeSTP; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75C221A1C03; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:42:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=993; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1412264541; x=1413474141; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Fv5gDe6maMd+sDoQ+z+hNaqzIPDNxpP/hLKcSxlco5k=; b=mxH1oKxABD0U8DmTE1+3c3dDg0Es73RVIQdgTQHi7PlECmond25ls6Yj 7pf30deHcmhN1HEzbmzLA6onaQruUsEq4FlfRwNNZSC1iub9HaJQ0uPtI L1DHlJhC3nDvOv9x9ngGGqLvBlUdd2XpnFwcPpP0Dl3grDZ/o3a6vd9gm A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar4EAKRxLVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABgg2FagwHHY4dNAoEhAXuEBAEBBCMVQAEQCxoCBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEMAQcBAYg6Dac8lgcBF4EsjhgRAVAHgniBUwEEhiqPf4cKgWWFc4RtiS6DZTuBPoE7AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,639,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="192561622" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2014 15:42:19 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s92FgJBL016307; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:42:19 GMT Message-ID: <542D725B.1020600@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:42:19 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/fxpaQoBLQ_VO4s-Q-UkjpS64ZAs Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:42:23 -0000 Hi Stephen, Would you have a proposed sentence? Regards, Benoit > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > I would suggest that this WG also consider the potential impact > of ciphertext becoming much more common in networks to > be managed. It would be a pity if this work assumed that all > or most data is cleartext. I'd say just adding a sentence that > this is in scope for consideration would be enough. > > > From nobody Thu Oct 2 09:23:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639981A8822; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:23:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 0BVxv2tXarJi; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046501A87EF; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27788BDD7; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 17:23:34 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pOh4gslN2CTs; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 17:23:32 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.48.11] (unknown [86.42.29.169]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C4F4BE8A; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 17:23:30 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <542D7C01.7010605@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:23:29 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benoit Claise , The IESG References: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <542D725B.1020600@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <542D725B.1020600@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/UVoaJvErqjeBuR9fWfwt1Qu1JfM Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:23:37 -0000 On 02/10/14 16:42, Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Would you have a proposed sentence? Not sure, but how about "The WG will consider the impact(s) of much more common use of encryption on OAM" or something like that? S > > Regards, Benoit >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >> charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> I would suggest that this WG also consider the potential impact >> of ciphertext becoming much more common in networks to >> be managed. It would be a pity if this work assumed that all >> or most data is cleartext. I'd say just adding a sentence that >> this is in scope for consideration would be enough. >> >> >> > From nobody Thu Oct 2 09:29:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D194C1A8871; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:29:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 CVFu_Wacq0rt; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 686611A8844; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h15so2306766igd.4 for ; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:28:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LE0rW97qfBXOCbnMvsQOCzhB9tATJRWQ5kvIbq6SqMg=; b=0UtS1LFJ5m0aITAio/YgYifH6VqrMM7lJLnm+bocKAlJw9ysfEpLBECqjyXvIIteUT zEg+6Pbiq1Hpmo/oroCVPQN18A+ueASEppHeveox2fMxUd9RV5UVXVjZVv9ZIHIVOUqz ap9S9iX2iDmlayrauvIDUAf8sClglXxbDtonkiRGtViXTgmGIAr9ukBmBGN+9NONfsO1 V8hywbE2ldSEqLP+f1g/xZo0hH74Epo4BzNVcs3jEDgxHosnwXmO9axSD3UNPX0gp/yX Ly0UtmZ8dXBE7Nf4nug5rYWtDvnLBV6h6SFiIzA+4KkA+9pofKTlzXSijVbxHhF/q/+9 Bk0w== X-Received: by 10.50.79.232 with SMTP id m8mr6380874igx.0.1412267339851; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.10] (CPE7cb21b2cb904-CM7cb21b2cb901.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.231.49.38]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id lr8sm1227969igb.5.2014.10.02.09.28.59 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <542D7D49.3070707@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 12:28:57 -0400 From: Rene Struik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benoit Claise , Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <542D725B.1020600@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <542D725B.1020600@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/L-A_k-UIk3SONa8jMzyUdGykACg Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:29:05 -0000 Hi Stephen: I am somewhat concerned that every nail is considered with the "pervasive monitoring" hammer. Personally, I think this a very myopic world view and viewing everything in this way is not necessarily in the best interest of bettering the overall security posture of the internet at large. (Of course, like everyone else one is entitled to one's own opinion, but being Security AD bears also the responsibility to view a multidimensional problem in multiple dimensions, without singling out too much a single topic item.) Best regards, Rene On 10/2/2014 11:42 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Would you have a proposed sentence? > > Regards, Benoit >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >> charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> I would suggest that this WG also consider the potential impact >> of ciphertext becoming much more common in networks to >> be managed. It would be a pity if this work assumed that all >> or most data is cleartext. I'd say just adding a sentence that >> this is in scope for consideration would be enough. >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime -- email: rstruik.ext@gmail.com | Skype: rstruik cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 690-7363 From nobody Thu Oct 2 10:04:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E091A8927; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 10:04:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 3S9qjmxi-CTb; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4D71A895D; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 10:04:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id F156DBE83; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:04:03 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WbDYpco8dLec; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:04:02 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.48.11] (unknown [86.42.29.169]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A8E3BE7D; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:04:02 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <542D8582.9060004@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:04:02 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rene Struik , Benoit Claise , The IESG References: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <542D725B.1020600@cisco.com> <542D7D49.3070707@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <542D7D49.3070707@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/j4xXh-97zEYbx5vLmxDND4XD9kw Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:04:27 -0000 On 02/10/14 17:28, Rene Struik wrote: > Hi Stephen: > > I am somewhat concerned that every nail is considered with the > "pervasive monitoring" hammer. Heh. The metaphor seems a bit backwards though. But actually there are loads of reasons why more ciphertext will be seen, not just PM so I think considering the issue is just sensible. S. > > Personally, I think this a very myopic world view and viewing everything > in this way is not necessarily in the best interest of bettering the > overall security posture of the internet at large. > > (Of course, like everyone else one is entitled to one's own opinion, but > being Security AD bears also the responsibility to view a > multidimensional problem in multiple dimensions, without singling out > too much a single topic item.) > > Best regards, Rene > > > On 10/2/2014 11:42 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> >> Would you have a proposed sentence? >> >> Regards, Benoit >>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >>> charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> I would suggest that this WG also consider the potential impact >>> of ciphertext becoming much more common in networks to >>> be managed. It would be a pity if this work assumed that all >>> or most data is cleartext. I'd say just adding a sentence that >>> this is in scope for consideration would be enough. >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lime mailing list >> Lime@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime > > From nobody Thu Oct 2 18:03:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FA01ACFB7; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:03:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, 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 2xoUjRwJ21sX; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:03:39 -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 A86B01A884C; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BNG53673; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 01:03:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 02:03:36 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:03:31 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG Thread-Topic: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHP3lVbzq2zjsOFrEiESfNiAKjk1Zwdh8kQ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 01:03:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.45.14.232] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/8Veuxgb2XsU3FCJuQ6BRcnrnm2k Cc: "lime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 01:03:41 -0000 WWVzLCBUaGVyZSB3YXMgc29tZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9uIGxpc3QgcmVnYXJkaW5nIHNlY3VyaXR5 IGFzcGVjdC4gIA0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsLWFyY2hpdmUvd2ViL2xpbWUvY3Vy cmVudC9tc2cwMDA1NS5odG1sDQpVbmZvcnR1bmF0ZWx5IHdlIGhhdmVuJ3QgYXJyaXZlZCBhdCBh bnkgYWdyZWVtZW50IG9uIGFkZGluZyBpdCBpbnRvIHRoZSBMSU1FIENoYXJ0ZXIuDQoNCkFsc28g c2luY2UgTkVUQ09ORiBuZWVkcyBZQU5HIERNTCwgdGhlIDV0aCBwYXJhZ3JhcGgsIHNlY3VyaXR5 IHNlY3Rpb24gb2YgUkZDNjAyMCBzaG91bGQgYXBwbHkuDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMhDQotUWluDQotLS0t LdPKvP7Urbz+LS0tLS0NCreivP7IyzogTGltZSBbbWFpbHRvOmxpbWUtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9y Z10gtPqx7SBTdGVwaGVuIEZhcnJlbGwNCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOoxMNTCMsjVIDIzOjEyDQrK 1bz+yMs6IFRoZSBJRVNHDQqzrcvNOiBsaW1lQGlldGYub3JnDQrW98ziOiBbTGltZV0gU3RlcGhl biBGYXJyZWxsJ3MgTm8gT2JqZWN0aW9uIG9uIGNoYXJ0ZXItaWV0Zi1saW1lLTAwLTEwOiAod2l0 aCBDT01NRU5UKQ0KDQpTdGVwaGVuIEZhcnJlbGwgaGFzIGVudGVyZWQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBi YWxsb3QgcG9zaXRpb24gZm9yDQpjaGFydGVyLWlldGYtbGltZS0wMC0xMDogTm8gT2JqZWN0aW9u DQoNCldoZW4gcmVzcG9uZGluZywgcGxlYXNlIGtlZXAgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgbGluZSBpbnRhY3Qg YW5kIHJlcGx5IHRvIGFsbCBlbWFpbCBhZGRyZXNzZXMgaW5jbHVkZWQgaW4gdGhlIFRvIGFuZCBD QyBsaW5lcy4gKEZlZWwgZnJlZSB0byBjdXQgdGhpcyBpbnRyb2R1Y3RvcnkgcGFyYWdyYXBoLCBo b3dldmVyLikNCg0KDQoNClRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgYWxvbmcgd2l0aCBvdGhlciBiYWxsb3QgcG9z aXRpb25zLCBjYW4gYmUgZm91bmQgaGVyZToNCmh0dHA6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9k b2MvY2hhcnRlci1pZXRmLWxpbWUvDQoNCg0KDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQpDT01NRU5UOg0KLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KDQoNCkkgd291bGQgc3VnZ2VzdCB0aGF0IHRoaXMgV0cgYWxzbyBjb25zaWRl ciB0aGUgcG90ZW50aWFsIGltcGFjdCBvZiBjaXBoZXJ0ZXh0IGJlY29taW5nIG11Y2ggbW9yZSBj b21tb24gaW4gbmV0d29ya3MgdG8gYmUgbWFuYWdlZC4gSXQgd291bGQgYmUgYSBwaXR5IGlmIHRo aXMgd29yayBhc3N1bWVkIHRoYXQgYWxsIG9yIG1vc3QgZGF0YSBpcyBjbGVhcnRleHQuIEknZCBz YXkganVzdCBhZGRpbmcgYSBzZW50ZW5jZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgaXMgaW4gc2NvcGUgZm9yIGNvbnNp ZGVyYXRpb24gd291bGQgYmUgZW5vdWdoLg0KDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpMaW1lIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KTGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0K aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9saW1lDQo= From nobody Fri Oct 3 01:36:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C8E1A0195; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 01:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 6w-02Plm8sl9; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 01:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7CF31A0194; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 01:36:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1433; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1412325398; x=1413534998; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NZmhVP+uwgcuyUA8ZiK0nVNtAJ9zZ0uUVwfOjr14kJs=; b=NSwAtgfMy0NAvOH6RiEnbQsyLCogwXG9ZLk2xPglQ3z/wQ43nV6t+zv+ SwN0Z77oY6IB12Ek7LhDJUkvTKm0+EJ7oVgGR05FpFEw5pgj8R74lOajG UCu086MArfaYdMEqDHEEDp1il0DwPE/bVoOrL7uUBUyWdKsgAkS+83Zqa s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqgEAD5fLlStJssW/2dsb2JhbABfg2FZgwHHeIdNAoEeAXuEBAEBBCMVQAEQCxgCAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYBDAEHAQGIOg2oUJVtAReBLI4YEQFQB4J3gVQBBIYrkAWHDYEsO4MGgm+OH4NlO4E+gTsBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,645,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="193404116" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2014 08:36:36 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s938aZB6003194; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:36:35 GMT Message-ID: <542E6013.9070905@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:36:35 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <542D725B.1020600@cisco.com> <542D7C01.7010605@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <542D7C01.7010605@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/0-sUW1PmXxqlTm90T8CL6_WUHVo Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 08:36:41 -0000 On 02/10/2014 18:23, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > On 02/10/14 16:42, Benoit Claise wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> >> Would you have a proposed sentence? > Not sure, but how about "The WG will consider the impact(s) of > much more common use of encryption on OAM" or something like > that? What I'm missing is: what kind of practical outcomes do you hope for with such a sentence in the charter? Regards, Benoit > > S > >> Regards, Benoit >>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >>> charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> I would suggest that this WG also consider the potential impact >>> of ciphertext becoming much more common in networks to >>> be managed. It would be a pity if this work assumed that all >>> or most data is cleartext. I'd say just adding a sentence that >>> this is in scope for consideration would be enough. >>> >>> >>> > . > From nobody Fri Oct 3 02:40:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731951AD007 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 02:40:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 X8XKUBilFU6h for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 02:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E9A21A0233 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 02:40:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4113; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1412329221; x=1413538821; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject; bh=Eh1/kQ0KS+6djk+xp75ahRalUEtvCGqXRMFj0ZrovQQ=; b=efZbh9ybyPyYNUKPCu8x/Ia5OSV9YSgnZuFA9YpCAFpD8nK/zxGDhoPU 8j4RIRCCyMuR5EHNu0KKhugZUxZlYRjnrlZamo6oLnZrGxPTBSgJItWrQ kfMV9z5wMQ1QctdWRlKN0YWY5ZahMA4ncuA1fDZVhvkhkZm1ZeYQfwJEQ I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtwEAKpuLlStJssW/2dsb2JhbABgg2FYAYhcwh2HTYEiAXuFAgEfHRYYAwIBAgEvHAEMAQcBAYg6Db5MAReQJoRSAQSWMIcNgSw7gwaCb4ogg3+DZTswgkkBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,646,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="193492966" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2014 09:40:19 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s939eJut018196; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:40:19 GMT Message-ID: <542E6F03.5040203@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:40:19 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lime@ietf.org" , Qin Wu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090001060607090507080306" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/xyOtn14zIC0K9cKxAU_c6h4W_dc Cc: Adrian Farrel , Alia Atlas , Stephen Farrell Subject: [Lime] LIME status X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 09:40:23 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090001060607090507080306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, As you know theLIME charter has been proposed the IESG, for review. Its status is Internal Review [1] During the BoF coordination call with the IESG/IAB on Wednesday, LIME was discussed. The placeholder has been secured. So LIME will either be a BoF or a WG at the next IETF meeting. During the IESG telechat on Thursday, the IESG approved this charter text for External review [1], after some edits, for which I'm currently discussing with Stephen. At this point, I would to highlight Qin Wu's tireless efforts to make this work take off the ground. If this effort goes smoothly so far, it's thanks to your energy. So thank you. While discussing scheduling (BoF or WG, it doesn't matter), this question came up: why such a long conflicts list? From http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki: Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WG,XRBLOCK, SACM, MPLS, PWE3, RTGWG, RTG Area meeting, TRILL, INT Area WG, INT Area meeting It will be difficult to schedule. I propose to reduce it Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WGs ,XRBLOCK, SACM, MPLS, PWE3, SFC, NVO3, MPLS, TRILL, RTG Area WG, INT Area WG Please speak up if you see other conflicts. Note also that we might to divide the conflicts into two categories: overlapping/complementary work, and personal. Hopefully, I covered the right routing WGs. Alia, Adrian? Regards, Benoit [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/charter/ --------------090001060607090507080306 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all,

As you know the LIME charter has been proposed the IESG, for review. Its status is Internal Review [1]

During the BoF coordination call with the IESG/IAB on Wednesday, LIME was discussed. The placeholder has been secured. So LIME will either be a BoF or a WG at the next IETF meeting.
During the IESG telechat on Thursday, the IESG approved this charter text for External review [1], after some edits, for which I'm currently discussing with Stephen.

At this point, I would to highlight Qin Wu's tireless efforts to make this work take off the ground.
If this effort goes smoothly so far, it's thanks to your energy. So thank you.

While discussing scheduling (BoF or WG, it doesn't matter), this question came up: why such a long conflicts list?
From http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki:
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WG,XRBLOCK, SACM, MPLS, PWE3, RTGWG, RTG Area meeting, TRILL, INT Area WG, INT Area meeting
It will be difficult to schedule. I propose to reduce it
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WGs ,XRBLOCK, SACM, MPLS, PWE3, SFC, NVO3, MPLS, TRILL, RTG Area WG, INT Area WG
Please speak up if you see other conflicts. Note also that we might to divide the conflicts into two categories: overlapping/complementary work, and personal.
Hopefully, I covered the right routing WGs. Alia, Adrian?

Regards, Benoit

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/charter/
--------------090001060607090507080306-- From nobody Fri Oct 3 02:48:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D081AD004 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 02:48:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 8kF2WJ43PV2N for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 02:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x22c.google.com (mail-la0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE7B61AD003 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 02:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id gb8so728524lab.17 for ; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 02:48:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AwmGLodnABbsX75tubIrjPOyQXAsrPKUqxDwiCnCCx4=; b=vHX2lVD9akzXIIgGv+nD96P3O0gvY27s10blwO4jCXE0aBv9bIoMJlrksy/CgZxhj/ Wbqm8Kaau5gjcUKlFw4Ihy6aP8NPYlaUpJ0m6flZzfHNmfcsE9HZuJiYQ7HF+vcepRHL nvHSLXE3EoZquxP/KeJxEx797bg7QsH4vCto7B0qbfVMSc8gyq90eJXcJMLluAxseSSk EnaG9dCIiwDnHW3Q8kJRGC/zG4eYx0s5y8GWPrvyaf85eJ2YQ3X/KBXeqBeCx3WHpwMT GW5BJJTzUtlI0zBRN8Guw80JLthtixnmo8ZR9ZdDrAeHA3kJRVNeOFjFWpT6e0EUi0Ap KX0A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.21.226 with SMTP id y2mr4721947lae.34.1412329699161; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 02:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.223.5 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 02:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.223.5 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 02:48:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <542E6F03.5040203@cisco.com> References: <542E6F03.5040203@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:48:19 +0200 Message-ID: From: Huub van Helvoort To: Benoit Claise Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b6be063a4d050481a298 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/tGHl7FujCZjRdzAYRTUdKxVIzzQ Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Stephen Farrell , "lime@ietf.org" , Qin Wu , Alia Atlas Subject: Re: [Lime] LIME status X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 09:48:22 -0000 --089e0158b6be063a4d050481a298 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello Benoit, Your proposed reduction is OK. A small nit: MPLS is mentioned twice (even more reduction ^_^) BR Huub. sent from my android tablet On 3 Oct 2014 11:40, "Benoit Claise" wrote: > Dear all, > > As you know the LIME charter > has been proposed the > IESG, for review. Its status is Internal Review [1] > > During the BoF coordination call with the IESG/IAB on Wednesday, LIME was > discussed. The placeholder has been secured. So LIME will either be a BoF > or a WG at the next IETF meeting. > During the IESG telechat on Thursday, the IESG approved this charter text > for External review [1], after some edits, for which I'm currently > discussing with Stephen. > > At this point, I would to highlight Qin Wu's tireless efforts to make this > work take off the ground. > If this effort goes smoothly so far, it's thanks to your energy. So thank > you. > > While discussing scheduling (BoF or WG, it doesn't matter), this question > came up: why such a long conflicts list? > From http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki: > > Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WG,XRBLOCK, SACM, > MPLS, PWE3, RTGWG, RTG Area meeting, TRILL, INT Area WG, INT Area meeting > > It will be difficult to schedule. I propose to reduce it > > Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WGs ,XRBLOCK, SACM, > MPLS, PWE3, SFC, NVO3, MPLS, TRILL, RTG Area WG, INT Area WG > > Please speak up if you see other conflicts. Note also that we might to > divide the conflicts into two categories: overlapping/complementary work, > and personal. > Hopefully, I covered the right routing WGs. Alia, Adrian? > > Regards, Benoit > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/charter/ > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime > > --089e0158b6be063a4d050481a298 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Benoit,
Your proposed reduction is OK.

A small nit: MPLS is mentioned twice (even more reduction ^_= ^)

BR Huub.

sent from my android tablet

On 3 Oct 2014 11:40, "Benoit Claise" &= lt;bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Dear all,

As you know the LIME charter has been proposed the IESG, for review. Its status is Internal Review [1]

During the BoF coordination call with the IESG/IAB on Wednesday, LIME was discussed. The placeholder has been secured. So LIME will either be a BoF or a WG at the next IETF meeting.
During the IESG telechat on Thursday, the IESG approved this charter text for External review [1], after some edits, for which I'm currently discussing with Stephen.

At this point, I would to highlight Qin Wu's tireless efforts to make this work take off the ground.
If this effort goes smoothly so far, it's thanks to your energy. So thank you.

While discussing scheduling (BoF or WG, it doesn't matter), this question came up: why such a long conflicts list?
From http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki:
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WG,XRBLOCK, SACM, MPLS, PWE3, RTGWG, RTG Area meeting, TRILL, INT Area WG, INT Area meeting
It will be difficult to schedule. I propose to reduce it
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WGs ,XRBLOCK, SACM, MPLS, PWE3, SFC, NVO3, MPLS, TRILL, RTG Area WG, INT Area WG
Please speak up if you see other conflicts. Note also that we might to divide the conflicts into two categories: overlapping/complementary work, and personal.
Hopefully, I covered the right routing WGs. Alia, Adrian?

Regards, Benoit

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/charter/

_______________________________________________
Lime mailing list
Lime@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime

--089e0158b6be063a4d050481a298-- From nobody Fri Oct 3 03:22:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD901A0252; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 03:22:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 C46Zv9aeJktc; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 03:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A5EA1A0243; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 03:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1F0BE87; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:22:47 +0100 (IST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8S67LeW0v1Wr; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:22:47 +0100 (IST) Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC02DBE7D; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:22:47 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <542E78F7.8080709@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:22:47 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benoit Claise , The IESG References: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <542D725B.1020600@cisco.com> <542D7C01.7010605@cs.tcd.ie> <542E6013.9070905@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <542E6013.9070905@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/qX-pS6N5KuE1JMeoQf4q-J3eZOc Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:22:50 -0000 On 03/10/14 09:36, Benoit Claise wrote: > On 02/10/2014 18:23, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> On 02/10/14 16:42, Benoit Claise wrote: >>> Hi Stephen, >>> >>> Would you have a proposed sentence? >> Not sure, but how about "The WG will consider the impact(s) of much >> more common use of encryption on OAM" or something like that? > What I'm missing is: what kind of practical outcomes do you hope for > with such a sentence in the charter? Mostly that the WG take on board that looking inside all or most packets might no longer be possible, and try do their good work regardless. As I said before, this may not be the right place to try handle all aspects of that issue, but then again maybe starting here would be good. S. > > Regards, Benoit >> >> S >> >>> Regards, Benoit >>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >>>> charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection >>>> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply >>>> to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel >>>> free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found >>>> here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> COMMENT: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would suggest that this WG also consider the potential impact >>>> of ciphertext becoming much more common in networks to be >>>> managed. It would be a pity if this work assumed that all or >>>> most data is cleartext. I'd say just adding a sentence that >>>> this is in scope for consideration would be enough. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> . >> > From nobody Fri Oct 3 03:43:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992371AD039 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 03:43:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no 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 4DGhZu3titWI for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 03:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19FC71AD034 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 03:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s93AhKcY016393; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:43:21 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s93AhHvH016345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:43:18 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Benoit Claise'" , , "'Qin Wu'" References: <542E6F03.5040203@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <542E6F03.5040203@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:43:12 +0100 Message-ID: <09b401cfdef6$d65e5060$831af120$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFTfdRJSUqcEDZRHOBP/NmImQV5ZJ0W7+JQ Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20992.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.616-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--10.616-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: QfHZjzml1E+nykMun0J1wuG5dRZCgxC32r3/CX4MlKCqvcIF1TcLYAK3 8IVwpUcJJ5QuJbwj9irdc/D1AWK1fs1ybZtba3mcEwyZyuMQ410hwKIIdklOV9UykPK1RFAoVq2 taXSKEJ90Q3kLI5lkfNcjSUBrmSxesdJb8mpdccQliarNEjJ/QSNQ2802DkHxwpCR3xisYS/PC/ 7RIQaUoIbC2Xi1Qy/xazaQmoruwiSrJbPvZAqztLTnlSLCGA+LrJ7xNeM3cWwsyfpzpik+YJMBN mFHEDBE4vM1YF6AJbZcLc3sLtjOt+TCMddcL/gjOwBXM346/+wiHfQ6YLn4Rml05teHPgIG8DFZ +3NJsVjbVxWICoWYg/+AMOJmvGMg Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/oBNKil0tX5xIijC8mCmffvsSBUY Cc: 'Alia Atlas' , 'Stephen Farrell' Subject: Re: [Lime] LIME status X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:43:49 -0000 Hi Benoit, Thanks for the update and for being bold enough to push for forming a WG straight off. [snip] > At this point, I would to highlight Qin Wu's tireless efforts to make > this work take off the ground. > If this effort goes smoothly so far, it's thanks to your energy. So > thank you. I'd agree with that. From first bringing the idea forward through a lot of re-focussing, Qin has herded a lot of cats to get this going. > While discussing scheduling (BoF or WG, it doesn't matter), this question came up: > why such a long conflicts list? > From http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki: > Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WG,XRBLOCK, SACM, MPLS, > PWE3, RTGWG, RTG Area meeting, TRILL, INT Area WG, INT Area meeting > It will be difficult to schedule. I propose to reduce it > Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WGs ,XRBLOCK, SACM, MPLS, > PWE3, SFC, NVO3, MPLS, TRILL, RTG Area WG, INT Area WG > Please speak up if you see other conflicts. Note also that we might to divide the > conflicts into two categories: overlapping/complementary work, and personal. > Hopefully, I covered the right routing WGs. Alia, Adrian? Interesting! You seem to have increased the number of RTG WGs to avoid :-) MPLS and PWE3 have historically developed a lot of OAM. I think they will be interested in this and I suggest them as 2nd-level conflicts. SFC and NVO3 will, in time, come on to consider OAM. That work is not yet ripe and I suggest them as level 3 conflicts. MPLS only needs to be listed once :-) The "RTG Area WG" is called RTGWG, and I think you should list it also as a 2nd-level conflict. I believe that the RTG Area Meeting should be listed as a level 1 conflict. Thanks, Adrian From nobody Fri Oct 3 04:03:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE1C1A02D6 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:03:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 AufQHH63Aulh for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A4661A028B for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:03:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=751; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1412334187; x=1413543787; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V5yZq1uTKBEL0rwjpmSSDKEBf/K5NCVYZCDILzX0NmU=; b=ACCnZP5rX/yI2NAaIfcq3g5CCe1j0QuuBGt2uKzIsm8K3ym9zHT/uruw sQN61q61yzToh4TU1WiwzceAr4L8Yq0CCQHGlRx6iCOgb5TXrzoDcvLuX Bln5ABnx0f+6mkjjeQYiS8/EPnBwjsRKLOdeYk/Nh02PJQyYnvrkIC95t o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEAEOBLlStJssW/2dsb2JhbABg1wACgSEBe4QEAQEDAThAAQULCyEWDwkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBiDIIvnsBF5AmB4RLAQSdPYdcjh+DZTuCeQEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,646,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="193534860" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2014 11:03:04 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s93B34oa027074; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:03:04 GMT Message-ID: <542E8268.2050403@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:03:04 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, lime@ietf.org, "'Qin Wu'" References: <542E6F03.5040203@cisco.com> <09b401cfdef6$d65e5060$831af120$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <09b401cfdef6$d65e5060$831af120$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/nJ8_ertih0OmY4pbEer6PiDkUfs Cc: 'Alia Atlas' , 'Stephen Farrell' Subject: Re: [Lime] LIME status X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:03:08 -0000 Ah, I see my confusion. I thought RTGWG meant all routing area WGs. Thanks. Let me make the correction. Regards, Benoit > Interesting! You seem to have increased the number of RTG WGs to avoid :-) > > MPLS and PWE3 have historically developed a lot of OAM. I think they will be > interested in this and I suggest them as 2nd-level conflicts. > SFC and NVO3 will, in time, come on to consider OAM. That work is not yet ripe > and I suggest them as level 3 conflicts. > MPLS only needs to be listed once :-) > The "RTG Area WG" is called RTGWG, and I think you should list it also as a > 2nd-level conflict. > I believe that the RTG Area Meeting should be listed as a level 1 conflict. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > > > . > From nobody Fri Oct 3 04:10:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4DC81AD035; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 80tqzwEQxjtB; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5AD61A02D6; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:09:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2157; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1412334598; x=1413544198; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1a5bx9C9vOkjtpTf7LUc/xgMbtohTbtxgOI44YmjzPk=; b=DNx/f5+5zIClrXMBQFnKZGb9S3WApLA3dz5m8Fn3tYcEKpR3XrkLGcH6 oZ3fB7JWS9s1Ua8WYgfd08lqexR1jyTxC2NkZXHDmawrKhqXG+IbvfLk9 LItu5L+03ayDtTuDJEsqlHXnR9vbSsjon4TsUvU6bH+m+l2tLuFvPutTW s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqgEAJeDLlStJssW/2dsb2JhbABgg2FZgwHHeIdNAoEiAXuEAwEBAQMBIxVAARALEgYCAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBNw4GAQwBBwEBiDIIDahzlXgBF4EsjhgRAVAHgneBVAEEhiuQBYcNgSw7gwaCb44fg2U7gT6BOwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,646,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="197651179" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2014 11:09:55 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s93B9tWf024185; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:09:55 GMT Message-ID: <542E8403.4070205@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:09:55 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <542D725B.1020600@cisco.com> <542D7C01.7010605@cs.tcd.ie> <542E6013.9070905@cisco.com> <542E78F7.8080709@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <542E78F7.8080709@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/VfE68kNUsfBhLZyUj0euUAbh84Y Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:10:00 -0000 > > On 03/10/14 09:36, Benoit Claise wrote: >> On 02/10/2014 18:23, Stephen Farrell wrote: >>> On 02/10/14 16:42, Benoit Claise wrote: >>>> Hi Stephen, >>>> >>>> Would you have a proposed sentence? >>> Not sure, but how about "The WG will consider the impact(s) of much >>> more common use of encryption on OAM" or something like that? >> What I'm missing is: what kind of practical outcomes do you hope for >> with such a sentence in the charter? > Mostly that the WG take on board that looking inside all or > most packets might no longer be possible, and try do their > good work regardless. > > As I said before, this may not be the right place to try > handle all aspects of that issue, but then again maybe starting > here would be good. Stephen and I just discussed this matter. While security is important (and will be important part of the guidance aspects of the architecture), we don't define a new OAM in this WG. So we agreed that this sentence is not necessary. Regards, Benoit > > S. > >> Regards, Benoit >>> S >>> >>>> Regards, Benoit >>>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >>>>> charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection >>>>> >>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply >>>>> to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel >>>>> free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found >>>>> here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> > COMMENT: >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > I would suggest that this WG also consider the potential impact >>>>> of ciphertext becoming much more common in networks to be >>>>> managed. It would be a pity if this work assumed that all or >>>>> most data is cleartext. I'd say just adding a sentence that >>>>> this is in scope for consideration would be enough. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> . >>> > . > From nobody Fri Oct 3 04:37:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372621ACFD7; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:37:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, 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 ncw0Trx4R15Z; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:37:41 -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 DFA261AD042; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BNG96507; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:37:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 12:37:38 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 19:37:32 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Benoit Claise , Stephen Farrell , The IESG Thread-Topic: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHP3lVbzq2zjsOFrEiESfNiAKjk1ZwcbB+AgAALgICAAQ/igIAAHayAgAANK4CAAI2XUA== Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:37:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20141002151159.4038.49891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <542D725B.1020600@cisco.com> <542D7C01.7010605@cs.tcd.ie> <542E6013.9070905@cisco.com> <542E78F7.8080709@cs.tcd.ie> <542E8403.4070205@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <542E8403.4070205@cisco.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.45.12.86] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/Gk6Zmi1ias2t9nqsDhNDOrXD9Iw Cc: "lime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lime] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:37:44 -0000 TWFrZSBzZW5zZSwgc3VwcG9ydC4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcyENCi1RaW4NCi0tLS0t08q8/tStvP4tLS0t LQ0Kt6K8/sjLOiBMaW1lIFttYWlsdG86bGltZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSC0+rHtIEJlbm9p dCBDbGFpc2UNCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOoxMNTCM8jVIDE5OjEwDQrK1bz+yMs6IFN0ZXBoZW4g RmFycmVsbDsgVGhlIElFU0cNCrOty806IGxpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCtb3zOI6IFJlOiBbTGltZV0g U3RlcGhlbiBGYXJyZWxsJ3MgTm8gT2JqZWN0aW9uIG9uIGNoYXJ0ZXItaWV0Zi1saW1lLTAwLTEw OiAod2l0aCBDT01NRU5UKQ0KDQoNCj4NCj4gT24gMDMvMTAvMTQgMDk6MzYsIEJlbm9pdCBDbGFp c2Ugd3JvdGU6DQo+PiBPbiAwMi8xMC8yMDE0IDE4OjIzLCBTdGVwaGVuIEZhcnJlbGwgd3JvdGU6 DQo+Pj4gT24gMDIvMTAvMTQgMTY6NDIsIEJlbm9pdCBDbGFpc2Ugd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4+IEhpIFN0 ZXBoZW4sDQo+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+IFdvdWxkIHlvdSBoYXZlIGEgcHJvcG9zZWQgc2VudGVuY2U/DQo+ Pj4gTm90IHN1cmUsIGJ1dCBob3cgYWJvdXQgIlRoZSBXRyB3aWxsIGNvbnNpZGVyIHRoZSBpbXBh Y3Qocykgb2YgbXVjaCANCj4+PiBtb3JlIGNvbW1vbiB1c2Ugb2YgZW5jcnlwdGlvbiBvbiBPQU0i IG9yIHNvbWV0aGluZyBsaWtlIHRoYXQ/DQo+PiBXaGF0IEknbSBtaXNzaW5nIGlzOiB3aGF0IGtp bmQgb2YgcHJhY3RpY2FsIG91dGNvbWVzIGRvIHlvdSBob3BlIGZvciANCj4+IHdpdGggc3VjaCBh IHNlbnRlbmNlIGluIHRoZSBjaGFydGVyPw0KPiBNb3N0bHkgdGhhdCB0aGUgV0cgdGFrZSBvbiBi b2FyZCB0aGF0IGxvb2tpbmcgaW5zaWRlIGFsbCBvciBtb3N0IA0KPiBwYWNrZXRzIG1pZ2h0IG5v IGxvbmdlciBiZSBwb3NzaWJsZSwgYW5kIHRyeSBkbyB0aGVpciBnb29kIHdvcmsgDQo+IHJlZ2Fy ZGxlc3MuDQo+DQo+IEFzIEkgc2FpZCBiZWZvcmUsIHRoaXMgbWF5IG5vdCBiZSB0aGUgcmlnaHQg cGxhY2UgdG8gdHJ5IGhhbmRsZSBhbGwgDQo+IGFzcGVjdHMgb2YgdGhhdCBpc3N1ZSwgYnV0IHRo ZW4gYWdhaW4gbWF5YmUgc3RhcnRpbmcgaGVyZSB3b3VsZCBiZSANCj4gZ29vZC4NClN0ZXBoZW4g YW5kIEkganVzdCBkaXNjdXNzZWQgdGhpcyBtYXR0ZXIuDQpXaGlsZSBzZWN1cml0eSBpcyBpbXBv cnRhbnQgKGFuZCB3aWxsIGJlIGltcG9ydGFudCBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBndWlkYW5jZSBhc3BlY3Rz IG9mIHRoZSBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUpLCB3ZSBkb24ndCBkZWZpbmUgYSBuZXcgT0FNIGluIHRoaXMg V0cuIFNvIHdlIGFncmVlZCB0aGF0IHRoaXMgc2VudGVuY2UgaXMgbm90IG5lY2Vzc2FyeS4NCg0K UmVnYXJkcywgQmVub2l0DQo+DQo+IFMuDQo+DQo+PiBSZWdhcmRzLCBCZW5vaXQNCj4+PiBTDQo+ Pj4NCj4+Pj4gUmVnYXJkcywgQmVub2l0DQo+Pj4+PiBTdGVwaGVuIEZhcnJlbGwgaGFzIGVudGVy ZWQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBiYWxsb3QgcG9zaXRpb24gZm9yDQo+Pj4+PiBjaGFydGVyLWlldGYt bGltZS0wMC0xMDogTm8gT2JqZWN0aW9uDQo+Pj4+Pg0KPj4+Pj4gV2hlbiByZXNwb25kaW5nLCBw bGVhc2Uga2VlcCB0aGUgc3ViamVjdCBsaW5lIGludGFjdCBhbmQgcmVwbHkgdG8gDQo+Pj4+PiBh bGwgZW1haWwgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIHRoZSBUbyBhbmQgQ0MgbGluZXMuIChGZWVs IGZyZWUgdG8gDQo+Pj4+PiBjdXQgdGhpcyBpbnRyb2R1Y3RvcnkgcGFyYWdyYXBoLCBob3dldmVy LikNCj4+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+Pg0KPj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4+IFRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgYWxvbmcgd2l0aCBv dGhlciBiYWxsb3QgcG9zaXRpb25zLCBjYW4gYmUgZm91bmQNCj4+Pj4+IGhlcmU6IGh0dHA6Ly9k YXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvY2hhcnRlci1pZXRmLWxpbWUvDQo+Pj4+Pg0KPj4+Pj4N Cj4+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+PiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4+Pj4+IC0tLS0NCj4+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+Pg0KPiBDT01N RU5UOg0KPj4+Pj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+Pj4+PiAtLS0tDQo+Pj4+Pg0KPj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4+DQo+ Pj4+Pg0KPiBJIHdvdWxkIHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhhdCB0aGlzIFdHIGFsc28gY29uc2lkZXIgdGhlIHBv dGVudGlhbCBpbXBhY3QNCj4+Pj4+IG9mIGNpcGhlcnRleHQgYmVjb21pbmcgbXVjaCBtb3JlIGNv bW1vbiBpbiBuZXR3b3JrcyB0byBiZSBtYW5hZ2VkLiANCj4+Pj4+IEl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGEgcGl0 eSBpZiB0aGlzIHdvcmsgYXNzdW1lZCB0aGF0IGFsbCBvciBtb3N0IGRhdGEgaXMgDQo+Pj4+PiBj bGVhcnRleHQuIEknZCBzYXkganVzdCBhZGRpbmcgYSBzZW50ZW5jZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgaXMgaW4g c2NvcGUgDQo+Pj4+PiBmb3IgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiB3b3VsZCBiZSBlbm91Z2guDQo+Pj4+Pg0K Pj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4+DQo+Pj4gLg0KPj4+DQo+IC4NCj4NCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkxpbWUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpMaW1lQGlldGYu b3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2xpbWUNCg== From nobody Fri Oct 3 04:55:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C441A030F for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:55:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.936 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.936 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, 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 n5guFOvJIfTz for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:55:39 -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 D3AF91A030C for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 04:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BNG97733; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:55:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 12:55:34 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 19:55:28 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Benoit Claise , "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: LIME status Thread-Index: AQHP3u4PCNb8oW2a7Uq2LGUc7vYNHpweP5CQ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:55:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <542E6F03.5040203@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <542E6F03.5040203@cisco.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.45.12.86] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845F79C2nkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/7KBG44YDiolzjTKWukPFxEuMhfk Cc: Adrian Farrel , Alia Atlas , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [Lime] LIME status X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:55:41 -0000 --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845F79C2nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 QmVub2l0Og0KR3JlYXQgdG8gc2VlIExJTUUgQ2hhcnRlciBnbyBhaGVhZCBmb3IgZXh0ZXJuYWwg cmV2aWV3Lg0KVGhhbmtzIEJlbm9pdCBmb3IgZ29vZCBndWlkYW5jZSBkdXJpbmcgQ2hhcnRlciBw cm9wb3NhbCBkaXNjdXNzaW9uLg0KWW91ciBwcm9wb3NlZCByZWR1Y2VkIGNvbmZsaWN0IGxpc3Qg d29ya3MgZm9yIG1lLg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzIQ0KLVFpbg0Kt6K8/sjLOiBCZW5vaXQgQ2xhaXNlIFtt YWlsdG86YmNsYWlzZUBjaXNjby5jb21dDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxNMTqMTDUwjPI1SAxNzo0MA0K ytW8/sjLOiBsaW1lQGlldGYub3JnOyBRaW4gV3UNCrOty806IFN0ZXBoZW4gRmFycmVsbDsgQWRy aWFuIEZhcnJlbDsgQWxpYSBBdGxhcw0K1vfM4jogTElNRSBzdGF0dXMNCg0KRGVhciBhbGwsDQoN CkFzIHlvdSBrbm93IHRoZSBMSU1FIGNoYXJ0ZXI8aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9y Zy93Zy9saW1lL2NoYXJ0ZXIvPiBoYXMgYmVlbiBwcm9wb3NlZCB0aGUgSUVTRywgZm9yIHJldmll dy4gSXRzIHN0YXR1cyBpcyBJbnRlcm5hbCBSZXZpZXcgWzFdDQoNCkR1cmluZyB0aGUgQm9GIGNv b3JkaW5hdGlvbiBjYWxsIHdpdGggdGhlIElFU0cvSUFCIG9uIFdlZG5lc2RheSwgTElNRSB3YXMg ZGlzY3Vzc2VkLiBUaGUgcGxhY2Vob2xkZXIgaGFzIGJlZW4gc2VjdXJlZC4gU28gTElNRSB3aWxs IGVpdGhlciBiZSBhIEJvRiBvciBhIFdHIGF0IHRoZSBuZXh0IElFVEYgbWVldGluZy4NCkR1cmlu ZyB0aGUgSUVTRyB0ZWxlY2hhdCBvbiBUaHVyc2RheSwgdGhlIElFU0cgYXBwcm92ZWQgdGhpcyBj aGFydGVyIHRleHQgZm9yIEV4dGVybmFsIHJldmlldyBbMV0sIGFmdGVyIHNvbWUgZWRpdHMsIGZv ciB3aGljaCBJJ20gY3VycmVudGx5IGRpc2N1c3Npbmcgd2l0aCBTdGVwaGVuLg0KDQpBdCB0aGlz IHBvaW50LCBJIHdvdWxkIHRvIGhpZ2hsaWdodCBRaW4gV3UncyB0aXJlbGVzcyBlZmZvcnRzIHRv IG1ha2UgdGhpcyB3b3JrIHRha2Ugb2ZmIHRoZSBncm91bmQuDQpJZiB0aGlzIGVmZm9ydCBnb2Vz IHNtb290aGx5IHNvIGZhciwgaXQncyB0aGFua3MgdG8geW91ciBlbmVyZ3kuIFNvIHRoYW5rIHlv dS4NCg0KV2hpbGUgZGlzY3Vzc2luZyBzY2hlZHVsaW5nIChCb0Ygb3IgV0csIGl0IGRvZXNuJ3Qg bWF0dGVyKSwgdGhpcyBxdWVzdGlvbiBjYW1lIHVwOiB3aHkgc3VjaCBhIGxvbmcgY29uZmxpY3Rz IGxpc3Q/DQpGcm9tIGh0dHA6Ly90cmFjLnRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2JvZi90cmFjL3dpa2k6DQpD b25mbGljdHMgdG8gYXZvaWQgKHdob2xlIEFyZWFzIGFuZC9vciBXR3MpOiBBbGwgT1BTIFdHLFhS QkxPQ0ssIFNBQ00sIE1QTFMsIFBXRTMsIFJUR1dHLCBSVEcgQXJlYSBtZWV0aW5nLCBUUklMTCwg SU5UIEFyZWEgV0csIElOVCBBcmVhIG1lZXRpbmcNCkl0IHdpbGwgYmUgZGlmZmljdWx0IHRvIHNj aGVkdWxlLiBJIHByb3Bvc2UgdG8gcmVkdWNlIGl0DQpDb25mbGljdHMgdG8gYXZvaWQgKHdob2xl IEFyZWFzIGFuZC9vciBXR3MpOiBBbGwgT1BTIFdHcyAsWFJCTE9DSywgU0FDTSwgTVBMUywgUFdF MywgU0ZDLCBOVk8zLCBNUExTLCBUUklMTCwgUlRHIEFyZWEgV0csIElOVCBBcmVhIFdHDQpQbGVh c2Ugc3BlYWsgdXAgaWYgeW91IHNlZSBvdGhlciBjb25mbGljdHMuIE5vdGUgYWxzbyB0aGF0IHdl IG1pZ2h0IHRvIGRpdmlkZSB0aGUgY29uZmxpY3RzIGludG8gdHdvIGNhdGVnb3JpZXM6IG92ZXJs YXBwaW5nL2NvbXBsZW1lbnRhcnkgd29yaywgYW5kIHBlcnNvbmFsLg0KSG9wZWZ1bGx5LCBJIGNv dmVyZWQgdGhlIHJpZ2h0IHJvdXRpbmcgV0dzLiBBbGlhLCBBZHJpYW4/DQoNClJlZ2FyZHMsIEJl bm9pdA0KDQpbMV0gaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvaGVscC9zdGF0ZS9j aGFydGVyLw0K --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845F79C2nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Benoit:

Great to s= ee LIME Charter go ahead for external review.

Thanks Ben= oit for good guidance during Charter proposal discussion.=

Your propo= sed reduced conflict list works for me.

 = ;

Regards!

-Qin<= /o:p>

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB:= Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4:<= span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:=CB=CE=CC=E5;colo= r:windowtext"> 2014=C4=EA10=D4=C23=C8=D5 17:40
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: lime@ietf.org; Qin Wu
=B3=AD=CB=CD: Stephen Farrell; Adrian Farrel; Alia Atlas
=D6=F7=CC=E2: LIME status

 

Dear all,

As you know the L= IME charter has been proposed the IESG, for review. Its status is Inter= nal Review [1]

During the BoF coordination call with the IESG/IAB on Wednesday, LIME was d= iscussed. The placeholder has been secured. So LIME will either be a BoF or= a WG at the next IETF meeting.
During the IESG telechat on Thursday, the IESG approved this charter text f= or External review [1], after some edits, for which I'm currently discussin= g with Stephen.

At this point, I would to highlight Qin Wu's tireless efforts to make this = work take off the ground.
If this effort goes smoothly so far, it's thanks to your energy. So thank y= ou.

While discussing scheduling (BoF or WG, it doesn't matter), this question c= ame up: why such a long conflicts list?
>From http://trac.tools= .ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki:

Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas= and/or WGs): All OPS WG,XRBLOCK, SACM, MPLS, PWE3, RTGWG, RTG Area meeting= , TRILL, INT Area WG, INT Area meeting

It will be difficult to schedul= e. I propose to reduce it

Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas= and/or WGs): All OPS WGs ,XRBLOCK, SACM, MPLS, PWE3, SFC, NVO3, MPLS, TRIL= L, RTG Area WG, INT Area WG

Please speak up if you see othe= r conflicts. Note also that we might to divide the conflicts into two categ= ories: overlapping/complementary work, and personal.
Hopefully, I covered the right routing WGs. Alia, Adrian?

Regards, Benoit

[1] https:= //datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/charter/

--_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845F79C2nkgeml501mbschi_-- From nobody Fri Oct 3 05:06:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35B41A034D for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 05:06:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 tgLbfEQ1miUu for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 05:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 561D61A032E for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 05:06:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1412337988; x=1413547588; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=/arwFErP0t6d5869rZT3o0Px8DsJ6PsqfbDRb8UlZTk=; b=NIP9YVw2CQHMurZDHraz31QKkA7/nA1kqcdKR7t6aG/mrGIvS23ecvrY /Sww06b67ysweZl4h/tJ5exMMy8qGsn9SxyCrP+GvOumPTY44zcs70sQ0 4mo5cdR8JsEOWMqVuJECp9a9zjlzvGaqxgOdwq9e5AbtGaug3mappTU9t k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj8JAH6QLlStJssW/2dsb2JhbABgkgjEcAEBgSwBcgmEIx9APRYYAwIBAgFLDQgBAYg6mVClNxiUeAEEnT2HXI4fg2U7gnkBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,646,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="193590900" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2014 12:06:26 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s93C6QIM005683 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 12:06:26 GMT Message-ID: <542E9142.1090804@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:06:26 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lime@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/pS_l8exGdPyYRcEq1tLKqmgAiws Subject: [Lime] The LIME charter has been sent for external review X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 12:06:30 -0000 Regards, Benoit From nobody Fri Oct 3 07:28:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594E41A0039 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 07:28:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 RHgAKCu64gJc for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 07:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E0041A000C for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 07:28:22 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-a4-542e5bdaebb0 Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 49.50.05330.ADB5E245; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:18:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:28:21 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , 'Benoit Claise' , "lime@ietf.org" , 'Qin Wu' Thread-Topic: [Lime] LIME status Thread-Index: AQHP3u4Sa1vjIgjcwUuqCVTvwoYAApwectoA///6l7A= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:28:20 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8558E5@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <542E6F03.5040203@cisco.com> <09b401cfdef6$d65e5060$831af120$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <09b401cfdef6$d65e5060$831af120$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpnkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHW/dWtF6IwccpJhY/em4wW3x6eInZ 4uhjCYvHcxewWnRs285kMX3vNXYHNo8pvzeyeqztvsrmsXPWXXaPliNvWT2WLPnJ5LFi80rG ALYoLpuU1JzMstQifbsEroxfn34xFXQKV7R2bmNtYFzA38XIwSEhYCJx5pRkFyMnkCkmceHe erYuRi4OIYGjjBKNt14wQTjLGCU+TdvDClLFJmAk8WJjDztIQkRgBqNEx8r57CAJZoFQic4J D1lAbGEBeYkLk9vZQGwRAQWJc3OuQdlWEpNPdjGB2CwCKhJNdzeD9fIK+Epc2voSzBYSiJQ4 8v8rK8h1nALWEstfFYCEGYGu+35qDRPEKnGJW0/mM0FcLSCxZM95ZghbVOLl43+sELaSxJzX 15gh6nUkFuz+xAZha0ssW/iaGWKtoMTJmU9YJjCKzUIydhaSlllIWmYhaVnAyLKKkaO0OLUs N93IYBMjMOaOSbDp7mDc89LyEKMAB6MSD++CSbohQqyJZcWVuYcYpTlYlMR5Z9XOCxYSSE8s Sc1OTS1ILYovKs1JLT7EyMTBKdXAKNrOJLHjnK/Pdheh0FS3rQx8q3k3tL1QEs371ai6h4/3 k1t+mtLj8NzTp1K40+ZcZUzr4Xg/9fKF7/XfJC7XiU6/c7DSfZfHuzQ58b28LwTu/tmx41Tt 6eNxS1k9vFmMvbV33m9Zu/lIwtndyjw/7zeJ22XPOHkgb8Uy3VlfZsyVcv1z1zC/XImlOCPR UIu5qDgRAH8a+DmaAgAA Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/sCxXTnv5zAtAtl3-aO26SGhRetM Cc: 'Stephen Farrell' , 'Alia Atlas' Subject: Re: [Lime] LIME status X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:28:24 -0000 Dear Benoit and Adrian, if not already there, I'd add BFD as a conflict of very close encounter. SPRING and L2VPN/EVPN already had started to work on their OAM. Perhaps nex= t to SFC and NVO3. Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 3:43 AM To: 'Benoit Claise'; lime@ietf.org; 'Qin Wu' Cc: 'Alia Atlas'; 'Stephen Farrell' Subject: Re: [Lime] LIME status Hi Benoit, Thanks for the update and for being bold enough to push for forming a WG st= raight off. [snip] > At this point, I would to highlight Qin Wu's tireless efforts to make=20 > this work take off the ground. > If this effort goes smoothly so far, it's thanks to your energy. So=20 > thank you. I'd agree with that. From first bringing the idea forward through a lot of = re-focussing, Qin has herded a lot of cats to get this going. > While discussing scheduling (BoF or WG, it doesn't matter), this=20 > question came up:=20 > why such a long conflicts list? > From http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki: > Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WG,XRBLOCK, SACM,=20 > MPLS, PWE3, RTGWG, RTG Area meeting, TRILL, INT Area WG, INT Area=20 > meeting It will be difficult to schedule. I propose to reduce it=20 > Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): All OPS WGs ,XRBLOCK,=20 > SACM, MPLS, PWE3, SFC, NVO3, MPLS, TRILL, RTG Area WG, INT Area WG=20 > Please speak up if you see other conflicts. Note also that we might to=20 > divide the > conflicts into two categories: overlapping/complementary work, and person= al.=20 > Hopefully, I covered the right routing WGs. Alia, Adrian? Interesting! You seem to have increased the number of RTG WGs to avoid :-) MPLS and PWE3 have historically developed a lot of OAM. I think they will b= e interested in this and I suggest them as 2nd-level conflicts. SFC and NVO3 will, in time, come on to consider OAM. That work is not yet r= ipe and I suggest them as level 3 conflicts. MPLS only needs to be listed once :-) The "RTG Area WG" is called RTGWG, and I think you should list it also as a= 2nd-level conflict. I believe that the RTG Area Meeting should be listed as a level 1 conflict. Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Lime mailing list Lime@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime From nobody Fri Oct 3 16:45:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34281A8752; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:34:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 0x8CsPCnx8pf; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8471A03E1; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.3.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141003173442.16244.52990.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:34:42 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/sxvNudfhcILZ-iwCCwixdR20SXM X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:44:59 -0700 Cc: lime WG Subject: [Lime] WG Review: Layer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment (lime) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 17:34:46 -0000 A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and Management Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2014-10-13. Layer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment (lime) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Proposed WG Assigned Area Director: Benoit Claise Mailing list Address: lime@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lime/current/maillist.html Charter: Network Operators are increasingly challenged with operational and management limitations in network deployments due to Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) operating at different administrative and technology layers. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of a common architectural OAM management in those different layers and protocols. New work on network virtualization further complicates the layering model and the problems of coordinating OAM between layers and protocols. The absence of a common approach to OAM management has made it difficult for operators to: - Suppress large numbers of unnecessary alarms and notifications related to defects and failures arising in lower layers and visible in each higher layer - Quickly identify root causes of network failures - Coordinate end-to-end performance measurement with the results of performance monitoring at different layers in the network - Correlate defects, faults, and network failures between the different layers to improve efficiency of defect and fault localization and provide better OAM visibility. The LIME working group will concentrate on the operational challenges in consistent handling of end-to-end OAM and coordination of OAM within underlying network layers. This work will enable consistent configuration, reporting, and presentation for the OAM mechanisms used to manage the network, regardless of the layers and technologies. It will also produce architectural guidelines for the development of new OAM tools and protocols in both management plane and data plane so that they may be coherent with these mechanisms and more easily integrated from an operational points of view. The working group will work on the following deliverables: - YANG data model(s) for generic layer-independent and technology-independent configuration, reporting and presentation for OAM mechanisms. - An architecture for OAM that can be used as guidance by other IETF working groups developing new OAM protocols or modifying existing OAM protocols, at any layer and for any technology. This guidance will cover both the management and data planes. Existing OAM architectures will be reviewed. - Applicability document: The YANG model(s) specified in this working group must be usable and extensible by the existing OAM technologies. This usability and extensibility must be demonstrated, for example with IP Ping, traceroute, BFD, and LSP Ping. Note the technology-specific data model extensions should ideally be worked on in the respective working groups. The working group will explore and document use-cases for converged management of OAM in multi-layer and multi-technology networks that triggered this work. The use cases will consider scenarios that include (but are not limited to) those that rely upon a centralized control point responsible for the overall OAM management and those that assume the delegation of layer-specific OAM management control points. The working group will decide later whether the use case document needs to be published as an RFC. If the working group finds it necessary to work on an information model before the data model, it might do so. The working group will decide later whether the information model needs to be published as an RFC. The initial scope is restricted to a single administrative domain and may be extended for inter-domain scenarios in future as and when a need rises. The working group will not develop any new OAM protocols. The LIME WG is not chartered to work on information or data models specific to any data plane or forwarding plane technology that is developed outside of the IETF. However, it is the intention that the generic information and data models produced by the working group should be applicable to multiple layers and technologies in a technology agnostic fashion. Therefore, it is anticipated that the working group will closely coordinate its activities with other SDOs (including, but not limited to the ITU-T, MEF, IEEE, BBF and 3GPP) to ensure that the generic models are harmonized with work done in those SDOs and are applicable to many technologies. Milestones: Feb 2015 - Adopt the WG draft on YANG data model(s) May 2015 - Adopt the WG draft on LIME Architecture Aug 2015 - Adopt the WG draft for Applicability of the generic model Sep 2015 - Submit the YANG model(s) document to IESG as a Proposed Standards RFC Nov 2015 - Submit the Architecture document to IESG for review as an informational RFC Apr 2016 - Sumit the Applicability document to IESG for review as an Informational RFC Apr 2016 - Recharter or conclude From nobody Fri Oct 3 16:45:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CD41A8752 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:35:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 ZJi5S9nBCTsj for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81E01A879A for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:35:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lime@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.3.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141003173513.19617.91675.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:35:13 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/DyeNXvpwwU44XoRQ4FWyi0qvnqw X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:44:59 -0700 Subject: [Lime] State changed: charter-ietf-lime-00-10 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 17:35:16 -0000 State changed to External review. URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ From nobody Fri Oct 10 07:26:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1FC01A9151 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 07:26:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.354 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 FJcmt_pUoqNn for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 07:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EAA01ACE27 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 07:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C1130C260; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:26:11 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Gregory Mirsky Message-ID: <20141010142611.GD7516@pfrc> References: <542E6F03.5040203@cisco.com> <09b401cfdef6$d65e5060$831af120$@olddog.co.uk> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8558E5@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8558E5@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/cdtajOsDW-zRgYPYFhaUOhRi4_U Cc: 'Alia Atlas' , 'Benoit Claise' , "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "lime@ietf.org" , 'Qin Wu' , 'Stephen Farrell' Subject: Re: [Lime] LIME status X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:26:16 -0000 On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:28:20PM +0000, Gregory Mirsky wrote: > Dear Benoit and Adrian, > if not already there, I'd add BFD as a conflict of very close encounter. I'd certainly be upset to miss the first LIME session. :-) -- Jeff (behind on mail as usual, but pleased to see the progress here...) From nobody Sat Oct 11 16:28:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB4D1A3B9F for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:28:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 z_MK31VB-Ric for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32F461A1BFC for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:28:20 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-50-543965f92e75 Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 26.B5.05330.9F569345; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:16:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:28:18 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Monday session Thread-Index: Ac/lqnhlL/7Hq4uOTp25UUINByEKWQ== Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:28:18 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6eusaamb103erics_"; type="multipart/alternative" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprEIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPn+6vVMsQg129XBYd27YzOTB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY8aUA8wF/2oqnhyew9LA2FrYxcjJISFgIrGvcx0jhC0mceHe erYuRi4OIYGjjBJHJ69hhXCWM0qsvzSbFaSKTcBI4sXGHnYQW0RAWWJvzz0mEFtYQFzi/reV TBBxGYntPY+YIWw9icXLz4DZLAKqEi87TrKA2LwCvhIf5y8Eq2cE2vz91Bowmxlozq0n85kg LhKReHjxNBuELSrx8vE/VghbSWLO62tAMzmA6rsZJS4XQYwUlDg58wnLBEahWUgmzUKomoWk CqIkX6Kl4Q2UrSOxYPcnNghbW2LZwtfMMPaZA4+ZMMV1JDZf2gnVqyjR1jkbqIYLyF7CKLGu bRsbTNHRdR1wRVO6H7IvYORdxchRWpxalptuZLCJERiJxyTYdHcw7nlpeYhRgINRiYf3QZhF iBBrYllxZe4hRmkOFiVx3lm184KFBNITS1KzU1MLUovii0pzUosPMTJxcEo1MDY2zK5U6jwm eH6hvVfcAsvdkp8rtbt3XlmsPvfJ5OCa/FazA27OaWJXriw1yONqmFi2pnlh1wfVuD1TnXdE TVe5HqGUnvux6PfB+SdXhXGon2F9eTmdJeLd22tPGb8VPdgYlBuoePj95WUNi3/IFhebRW+/ ev9DI1P8y+av7tyPpI882fbnRLESS3FGoqEWc1FxIgACz7DXpQIAAA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/f7WlM82meQIGlB5TkbGtYYfsoLQ Subject: [Lime] Monday session X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:28:22 -0000 --_004_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6eusaamb103erics_" --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, congratulations and many thanks to everyone who worked hard on the charter= and use case documents to reach this truly remarkable milestone: 1300-1500 HST Monday Afternoon Session I Coral 3 GEN ianaplan [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Planning for the= IANA/NTIA Transition Lehua Suite INT pcp [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Port Control Pro= tocol Coral 5 OPS lime [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Layer Independen= t OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment Coral 1 RAI stir [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Secure Telephone= Identity Revisited Coral 4 RTG bier [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Bit Indexed Expl= icit Replication BOF Kahili 1/2 SEC mile [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Managed Incident= Lightweight Exchange Coral 2 TSV aqm [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Active Queue Man= agement and Packet Scheduling Hibiscus 1/2 TSV cdni [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Content Delivery= Networks Interconnection Regards, Greg --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear All,

congratulations and many thanks to everyone  wh= o worked hard on the charter and use case documents to reach this truly rem= arkable milestone:

1300-1500 HST =

Monday Afternoon Session I

Coral 3

GEN

ianaplan

3D"https://d=Planning for the IANA/NTI= A Transition

Lehua Suite

INT

pcp

3D"https://d=Port Control Protocol

Coral = 5<= /o:p>

OPS

lime =

3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.g=Layer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment

Coral 1

RAI

stir

3D"https://d=Secure Telephone Identity= Revisited

Coral 4

RTG

bier

3D"https://d=Bit Indexed Explicit Repl= ication BOF

Kahili 1/2<= /span>

SEC

mile

3D"https://d=Managed Incident Lightwei= ght Exchange

Coral 2

TSV

aqm

3D"https://d=Active Queue Management a= nd Packet Scheduling

Hibiscus 1/2

TSV

cdni

3D"https://d=Content Delivery Networks= Interconnection

 

        &nbs= p;       Regards,

        &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;          Greg=

--_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6eusaamb103erics_-- --_004_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif" Content-Description: image001.gif Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.gif"; size=102; creation-date="Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:28:16 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:28:16 GMT" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 R0lGODlhEAAQAMIDAAAA//8AAP//AP///6CgoP///////////yH5BAEKAAcALAAAAAAQABAAAAMr eLrc/jA6Qmm4d1aCc9tcp1VdMFpiA6yr4LoO275CLNO1etM2i0vAoLCRAAA7 --_004_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6eusaamb103erics_-- From nobody Sat Oct 11 17:50:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6497C1A0172 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:50:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 4efriSWQ2_8x for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com (mail-pa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F28C61A014D for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ey11so3878788pad.27 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:50:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:subject:message-id:importance:from:to:reply-to:mime-version :content-type; bh=Z64jGWLLKqWIKbWOEqzFxP7oHr5rMsD8K42IHLHD3Bk=; b=ukFxqpkTF4//z+oU++UoCWUrtcr7ZQ+5SHDk14Vtt86JhYCd6oB88kKHYc4qmEcq8J 9cSM+RQ0n39fHktTiE/lvasw83pddqNtFwG8Nhp+G0gvKJC/3YdJ6RihYPsx4HnOcu5B W6Chltn3LP5I25q+s0m1LZn9oYPOmCwkT2zVo3W1TepY5KM1P4Z2QacuYku+Vgx1FMQU ojVK6JYzdyNkX7IGWexVne+ta7SHLXxFibrAh0YWiEjOTtPsYFRUscqEsaF3aE1dfFmp crCsW9J1lgnrhvCkcLJl41/00fV9yPYMRpU90qin35CvjtswEhi9z0EM4fywXv1dQXXX HsGA== X-Received: by 10.66.189.131 with SMTP id gi3mr187578pac.114.1413075012495; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.8.100] ([112.4.50.49]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l6sm7183637pdr.39.2014.10.11.17.50.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 08:50:24 +0800 Message-ID: <9set7ahqvbjxlr5vwrij4sfv.1413074696986@email.android.com> Importance: normal From: Qin Wu To: Gregory Mirsky , "lime@ietf.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.android.email_39162387398380" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/QK5SF9-sEOYCfd_2C-YEdFBFdyQ Subject: [Lime] =?utf-8?b?5Zue5aSN77yaICBNb25kYXkgc2Vzc2lvbg==?= X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Qin Wu List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 00:50:15 -0000 ----_com.android.email_39162387398380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 CkdyZWc6ClRoYW5rIHUgYW5kIG90aGVyIGNvbnRyaWJ1dGluZyB1c2UgY2FzZSBhbmQgY2hhcnRl cixzcGVjaWFsIHRoYW5rcyB0byBNZWQuIEkgd291bGQgbGlrZSBhbHNvIHRoYW5rIHBlb3BsZSB3 aG8gY29udHJpYnV0ZWQgdG8gcHJvYmxlbXMgc3RhdGVtZW50IGFuZCBoZWxwZWQgcG9saXNoIHBz IGRyYWZ0IHdoaWNoIG1vdGl2YXRlZCB0aGlzIHdvcmsuCgpCUgotUWluwqAK5LuO5LiJ5pif5omL 5py65Y+R6YCBCgotLS0tLS0tLSDljp/lp4vpgq7ku7YgLS0tLS0tLS0K5Y+R5Lu25Lq677yaIEdy ZWdvcnkgTWlyc2t5IDxncmVnb3J5Lm1pcnNreUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20+IArml6XmnJ86IDIwMTQt MTAtMTIgIDA3OjI4ICAoR01UKzA4OjAwKSAK5pS25Lu25Lq677yaIGxpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmcgCuS4 u+mimO+8miBbTGltZV0gTW9uZGF5IHNlc3Npb24gCiAKRGVhciBBbGwsCmNvbmdyYXR1bGF0aW9u cyBhbmQgbWFueSB0aGFua3MgdG8gZXZlcnlvbmXCoCB3aG8gd29ya2VkIGhhcmQgb24gdGhlIGNo YXJ0ZXIgYW5kIHVzZSBjYXNlIGRvY3VtZW50cyB0byByZWFjaCB0aGlzIHRydWx5IHJlbWFya2Fi bGUgbWlsZXN0b25lOgoxMzAwLTE1MDDCoEhTVApNb25kYXkgQWZ0ZXJub29uIFNlc3Npb24gSQpD b3JhbCAzCkdFTgppYW5hcGxhbiAKUGxhbm5pbmcgZm9yIHRoZSBJQU5BL05USUEgVHJhbnNpdGlv bgpMZWh1YSBTdWl0ZQpJTlQKcGNwClBvcnQgQ29udHJvbCBQcm90b2NvbApDb3JhbCA1Ck9QUwps aW1lCkxheWVyIEluZGVwZW5kZW50IE9BTSBNYW5hZ2VtZW50IGluIHRoZSBNdWx0aS1MYXllciBF bnZpcm9ubWVudApDb3JhbCAxClJBSQpzdGlyClNlY3VyZSBUZWxlcGhvbmUgSWRlbnRpdHkgUmV2 aXNpdGVkCkNvcmFsIDQKUlRHCmJpZXIKQml0IEluZGV4ZWQgRXhwbGljaXQgUmVwbGljYXRpb24g Qk9GCkthaGlsaSAxLzIKU0VDCm1pbGUKTWFuYWdlZCBJbmNpZGVudCBMaWdodHdlaWdodCBFeGNo YW5nZQpDb3JhbCAyClRTVgphcW0KQWN0aXZlIFF1ZXVlIE1hbmFnZW1lbnQgYW5kIFBhY2tldCBT Y2hlZHVsaW5nCkhpYmlzY3VzIDEvMgpUU1YKY2RuaQpDb250ZW50IERlbGl2ZXJ5IE5ldHdvcmtz IEludGVyY29ubmVjdGlvbgrCoArCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqAgUmVnYXJk cywKwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKg wqDCoMKgwqAgR3JlZw== ----_com.android.email_39162387398380 Content-Type: multipart/relative; boundary="--_com.android.email_39163267864531" ----_com.android.email_39163267864531 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0 L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9VVRGLTgiPjwvaGVhZD48Ym9keSA+PGRpdj48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj5H cmVnOjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+VGhhbmsgdSBhbmQgb3RoZXIgY29udHJpYnV0aW5nIHVzZSBjYXNlIGFu ZCBjaGFydGVyLHNwZWNpYWwgdGhhbmtzIHRvIE1lZC4gSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIGFsc28gdGhhbmsg cGVvcGxlIHdobyBjb250cmlidXRlZCB0byBwcm9ibGVtcyBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgYW5kIGhlbHBlZCBw b2xpc2ggcHMgZHJhZnQgd2hpY2ggbW90aXZhdGVkIHRoaXMgd29yay48L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pjxicj48 L2Rpdj48ZGl2PkJSPC9kaXY+PGRpdj4tUWluJm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJm b250LXNpemU6NzUlO2NvbG9yOiM1NzU3NTciPuS7juS4ieaYn+aJi+acuuWPkemAgTwvZGl2Pjwv ZGl2Pjxicj48YnI+PGJyPi0tLS0tLS0tIOWOn+Wni+mCruS7tiAtLS0tLS0tLTxicj7lj5Hku7bk urrvvJogR3JlZ29yeSBNaXJza3kgJmx0O2dyZWdvcnkubWlyc2t5QGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbSZndDsg PGJyPuaXpeacnzogMjAxNC0xMC0xMiAgMDc6MjggIChHTVQrMDg6MDApIDxicj7mlLbku7bkurrv vJogbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZyA8YnI+5Li76aKY77yaIFtMaW1lXSBNb25kYXkgc2Vzc2lvbiA8YnI+ IDxicj48YnI+CjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PkRlYXIgQWxsLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5jb25ncmF0dWxh dGlvbnMgYW5kIG1hbnkgdGhhbmtzIHRvIGV2ZXJ5b25lJm5ic3A7IHdobyB3b3JrZWQgaGFyZCBv biB0aGUgY2hhcnRlciBhbmQgdXNlIGNhc2UgZG9jdW1lbnRzIHRvIHJlYWNoIHRoaXMgdHJ1bHkg cmVtYXJrYWJsZSBtaWxlc3RvbmU6PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+Cjx0YWJsZSBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9y bWFsVGFibGUiIGJvcmRlcj0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjAiIHdpZHRoPSIxMDAlIiBzdHlsZT0i d2lkdGg6MTAwLjAlIj4KPHRib2R5Pgo8dHI+Cjx0ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVw dCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjEzMDAtMTUwMCZuYnNwOzxzcGFu IGNsYXNzPSJpZXRmLXRpbnkiPkhTVDwvc3Bhbj4gPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4w cHQiPgo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+CjwvdGQ+Cjx0ZCBjb2xzcGFuPSI1IiBzdHlsZT0i cGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPk1v bmRheSBBZnRlcm5vb24gU2Vzc2lvbiBJIDxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ij48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+CjwvdGQ+CjwvdHI+Cjx0ciBzdHlsZT0iZGlzcGxheTp0YWJs ZS1yb3ciIGlkPSI5MS1tb24tMTMwMC1HRU4taWFuYXBsYW4iPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6 Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPjwvdGQ+Cjx0ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAu NzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly90 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9hZ2VuZGEvOTEvdmVudWUvP3Jvb209Y29yYWwtMyI+Q29yYWwgMzwvYT48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPgo8L3Rk Pgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj5HRU48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPgo8L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1 cHQiPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmll dGYub3JnL2RvYy9jaGFydGVyLWlldGYtaWFuYXBsYW4vIj5pYW5hcGxhbjwvYT4KPHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0 eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PGltZyBib3JkZXI9IjAiIHdpZHRoPSIxNiIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxNiIgaWQ9IlBpY3R1cmVfeDAw MjBfOCIgc3JjPSJjaWQ6X2NvbV9hbmRyb2lkX2VtYWlsX2F0dGFjaG1lbnRwcm92aWRlcl8xXzE3 NV9SQVdAc2VjLmdhbGF4eXRhYiIgYWx0PSJodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2lt YWdlcy9jb2xvci1wYWxldHRlLTR4NC5naWYiPlBsYW5uaW5nIGZvciB0aGUgSUFOQS9OVElBIFRy YW5zaXRpb24KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij48 L3RkPgo8L3RyPgo8dHIgc3R5bGU9ImRpc3BsYXk6dGFibGUtcm93IiBpZD0iOTEtbW9uLTEzMDAt SU5ULXBjcCI+Cjx0ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+PC90 ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2FnZW5kYS85MS92ZW51 ZS8/cm9vbT1sZWh1YS1zdWl0ZSI+TGVodWEgU3VpdGU8L2E+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5n Oi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+SU5UPHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRk IHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvY2hhcnRlci1p ZXRmLXBjcC8iPnBjcDwvYT4KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0 IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGltZyBib3JkZXI9IjAiIHdpZHRoPSIxNiIg aGVpZ2h0PSIxNiIgaWQ9IlBpY3R1cmVfeDAwMjBfNyIgc3JjPSJjaWQ6X2NvbV9hbmRyb2lkX2Vt YWlsX2F0dGFjaG1lbnRwcm92aWRlcl8xXzE3NV9SQVdAc2VjLmdhbGF4eXRhYiIgYWx0PSJodHRw czovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2ltYWdlcy9jb2xvci1wYWxldHRlLTR4NC5naWYiPlBv cnQgQ29udHJvbCBQcm90b2NvbAo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86cD48 L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPgo8L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1 cHQgLjc1cHQiPjwvdGQ+CjwvdHI+Cjx0ciBzdHlsZT0iZGlzcGxheTp0YWJsZS1yb3ciIGlkPSI5 MS1tb24tMTMwMC1PUFMtbGltZSI+Cjx0ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVw dCAuNzVwdCI+PC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0 Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOnJlZCI+PGEgaHJl Zj0iaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2FnZW5kYS85MS92ZW51ZS8/cm9vbT1jb3JhbC01Ij48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6cmVkIj5Db3JhbCA1PC9zcGFuPjwvYT48L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxiPjxz cGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0O2NvbG9yOnJlZCI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9iPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0 Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOnJlZCI+T1BTPC9z cGFuPjwvYj48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDtjb2xvcjpyZWQiPjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48L3A+CjwvdGQ+Cjx0ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVw dCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xv cjpyZWQiPjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2NoYXJ0ZXIt aWV0Zi1saW1lLyI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOnJlZCI+bGltZTwvc3Bhbj48L2E+Cjwvc3Bh bj48L2I+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6cmVkIj48bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PC9wPgo8L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQg Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6 cmVkIj48aW1nIGJvcmRlcj0iMCIgd2lkdGg9IjE2IiBoZWlnaHQ9IjE2IiBpZD0iUGljdHVyZV94 MDAyMF82IiBzcmM9ImNpZDpfY29tX2FuZHJvaWRfZW1haWxfYXR0YWNobWVudHByb3ZpZGVyXzFf MTc1X1JBV0BzZWMuZ2FsYXh5dGFiIiBhbHQ9Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcv aW1hZ2VzL2NvbG9yLXBhbGV0dGUtNHg0LmdpZiI+PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjpy ZWQiPkxheWVyIEluZGVwZW5kZW50CiBPQU0gTWFuYWdlbWVudCBpbiB0aGUgTXVsdGktTGF5ZXIg RW52aXJvbm1lbnQgPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDtj b2xvcjpyZWQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48L3A+CjwvdGQ+Cjx0ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFk ZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+PC90ZD4KPC90cj4KPHRyIHN0eWxlPSJkaXNw bGF5OnRhYmxlLXJvdyIgaWQ9IjkxLW1vbi0xMzAwLVJBSS1zdGlyIj4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRk aW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij48L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1 cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48YSBocmVmPSJodHRw Oi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvYWdlbmRhLzkxL3ZlbnVlLz9yb29tPWNvcmFsLTEiPkNvcmFsIDE8 L2E+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4K PC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+UkFJPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0 IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tl ci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvY2hhcnRlci1pZXRmLXN0aXIvIj5zdGlyPC9hPgo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0i Zm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPgo8L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9 InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 aW1nIGJvcmRlcj0iMCIgd2lkdGg9IjE2IiBoZWlnaHQ9IjE2IiBpZD0iUGljdHVyZV94MDAyMF81 IiBzcmM9ImNpZDpfY29tX2FuZHJvaWRfZW1haWxfYXR0YWNobWVudHByb3ZpZGVyXzFfMTc1X1JB V0BzZWMuZ2FsYXh5dGFiIiBhbHQ9Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW1hZ2Vz L2NvbG9yLXBhbGV0dGUtNHg0LmdpZiI+U2VjdXJlIFRlbGVwaG9uZSBJZGVudGl0eSBSZXZpc2l0 ZWQKPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4K PC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij48L3RkPgo8 L3RyPgo8dHIgc3R5bGU9ImRpc3BsYXk6dGFibGUtcm93IiBpZD0iOTEtbW9uLTEzMDAtUlRHLWJp ZXIiPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPjwvdGQ+Cjx0 ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiPjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9hZ2VuZGEvOTEvdmVudWUvP3Jv b209Y29yYWwtNCI+Q29yYWwgNDwvYT48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPgo8L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQg Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5SVEc8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1z aXplOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPgo8L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRp bmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5iaWVyPHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4K PHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCI+PGltZyBib3JkZXI9IjAiIHdpZHRoPSIxNiIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxNiIgaWQ9IlBpY3R1 cmVfeDAwMjBfNCIgc3JjPSJjaWQ6X2NvbV9hbmRyb2lkX2VtYWlsX2F0dGFjaG1lbnRwcm92aWRl cl8xXzE3NV9SQVdAc2VjLmdhbGF4eXRhYiIgYWx0PSJodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYu b3JnL2ltYWdlcy9jb2xvci1wYWxldHRlLTR4NC5naWYiPkJpdCBJbmRleGVkIEV4cGxpY2l0IFJl cGxpY2F0aW9uIEJPRgo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPgo8L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1 cHQiPjwvdGQ+CjwvdHI+Cjx0ciBzdHlsZT0iZGlzcGxheTp0YWJsZS1yb3ciIGlkPSI5MS1tb24t MTMwMC1TRUMtbWlsZSI+Cjx0ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVw dCI+PC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2FnZW5kYS85 MS92ZW51ZS8/cm9vbT1rYWhpbGktMTIiPkthaGlsaSAxLzI8L2E+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRk aW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+U0VDPHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4K PHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvY2hhcnRl ci1pZXRmLW1pbGUvIj5taWxlPC9hPgo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPgo8L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQg Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48aW1nIGJvcmRlcj0iMCIgd2lkdGg9 IjE2IiBoZWlnaHQ9IjE2IiBpZD0iUGljdHVyZV94MDAyMF8zIiBzcmM9ImNpZDpfY29tX2FuZHJv aWRfZW1haWxfYXR0YWNobWVudHByb3ZpZGVyXzFfMTc1X1JBV0BzZWMuZ2FsYXh5dGFiIiBhbHQ9 Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW1hZ2VzL2NvbG9yLXBhbGV0dGUtNHg0Lmdp ZiI+TWFuYWdlZCBJbmNpZGVudCBMaWdodHdlaWdodCBFeGNoYW5nZQo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9u dC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPgo8L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBh ZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPjwvdGQ+CjwvdHI+Cjx0ciBzdHlsZT0iZGlz cGxheTp0YWJsZS1yb3ciIGlkPSI5MS1tb24tMTMwMC1UU1YtYXFtIj4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRk aW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij48L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1 cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQiPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48YSBocmVmPSJodHRw Oi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvYWdlbmRhLzkxL3ZlbnVlLz9yb29tPWNvcmFsLTIiPkNvcmFsIDI8 L2E+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4K PC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+VFNWPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0 IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tl ci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvY2hhcnRlci1pZXRmLWFxbS8iPmFxbTwvYT4KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJw YWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGlt ZyBib3JkZXI9IjAiIHdpZHRoPSIxNiIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxNiIgaWQ9IlBpY3R1cmVfeDAwMjBfMiIg c3JjPSJjaWQ6X2NvbV9hbmRyb2lkX2VtYWlsX2F0dGFjaG1lbnRwcm92aWRlcl8xXzE3NV9SQVdA c2VjLmdhbGF4eXRhYiIgYWx0PSJodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2ltYWdlcy9j b2xvci1wYWxldHRlLTR4NC5naWYiPkFjdGl2ZSBRdWV1ZSBNYW5hZ2VtZW50IGFuZCBQYWNrZXQg U2NoZWR1bGluZwo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPgo8L3RkPgo8dGQgc3R5bGU9InBhZGRpbmc6Ljc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQgLjc1cHQi PjwvdGQ+CjwvdHI+Cjx0ciBzdHlsZT0iZGlzcGxheTp0YWJsZS1yb3ciIGlkPSI5MS1tb24tMTMw MC1UU1YtY2RuaSI+Cjx0ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+ PC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2FnZW5kYS85MS92 ZW51ZS8/cm9vbT1oaWJpc2N1cy0xMiI+SGliaXNjdXMgMS8yPC9hPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250 LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ij48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+CjwvdGQ+Cjx0ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFk ZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPlRTVjxz cGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ij48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+CjwvdGQ+ Cjx0ZCBzdHlsZT0icGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29Ob3JtYWwiPjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2NoYXJ0 ZXItaWV0Zi1jZG5pLyI+Y2RuaTwvYT4KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQiPjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4KPC90ZD4KPHRkIHN0eWxlPSJwYWRkaW5nOi43NXB0IC43NXB0 IC43NXB0IC43NXB0Ij4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGltZyBib3JkZXI9IjAiIHdpZHRo PSIxNiIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxNiIgaWQ9IlBpY3R1cmVfeDAwMjBfMSIgc3JjPSJjaWQ6X2NvbV9hbmRy b2lkX2VtYWlsX2F0dGFjaG1lbnRwcm92aWRlcl8xXzE3NV9SQVdAc2VjLmdhbGF4eXRhYiIgYWx0 PSJodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2ltYWdlcy9jb2xvci1wYWxldHRlLTR4NC5n aWYiPkNvbnRlbnQgRGVsaXZlcnkgTmV0d29ya3MgSW50ZXJjb25uZWN0aW9uCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSJmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ij48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+CjwvdGQ+Cjx0ZCBzdHls ZT0icGFkZGluZzouNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCAuNzVwdCI+PC90ZD4KPC90cj4KPC90Ym9keT4K PC90YWJsZT4KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+CjxwIGNs YXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyBSZWdhcmRz LDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPgo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgR3Jl ZzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPgo8L2Rpdj4KCgo8L2JvZHk+ ----_com.android.email_39163267864531 Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.gif"; size=102 Content-ID: _com_android_email_attachmentprovider_1_175_RAW@sec.galaxytab R0lGODlhEAAQAMIDAAAA//8AAP//AP///6CgoP///////////yH5BAEKAAcALAAAAAAQABAAAAMr eLrc/jA6Qmm4d1aCc9tcp1VdMFpiA6yr4LoO275CLNO1etM2i0vAoLCRAAA7 ----_com.android.email_39163267864531-- ----_com.android.email_39162387398380-- From nobody Sat Oct 11 23:46:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC34F1A88E3 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:46:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 ntCwdUNM8UvN for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A3381A88D4 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:46:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21022; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413096370; x=1414305970; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=wMbgbpjqJNQw7laeepzNp+4dWVzgBe7K9kiPa/fX6uw=; b=DtSZiMayN3UIJCrFNdfjHSr3v2IS4WiQrHBr+de0stf8cR0UB8n0+0t0 AXB33vHC6qbV92ZDfrmiwQ+aObChRbMB7FQG9uXWPHJar5xshkXfnzKCr Vt1EloI5sFgN0bNLsE6XJkCCe9HX/LLyC+ZfpKO/gvZaHrb1n5qVKe99+ A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqwEAHcjOlStJssW/2dsb2JhbABQCYJIgRnKAYFNAQmHTQIbfwF9hAMBAQMBAQEBKjcKCgYLCx0BAgEWAQ4CBwMCAQIBBQEOATAGAQwFAQIBAQKIMAgNwTwBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXj2pihEsBBJVVZocQgWqFfI4rg3k7LwGCSQEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,703,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217,147";a="207420711" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2014 06:45:49 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9C6jmsg016949; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 06:45:48 GMT Message-ID: <543A239B.9070709@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 08:45:47 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory Mirsky , "lime@ietf.org" References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090602090703090006000909" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/-NFyqEabvU9tW_1wFPQ7yS8p4uk Subject: Re: [Lime] Monday session X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 06:46:13 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090602090703090006000909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Greg, > Dear All, > > congratulations and many thanks to everyone who worked hard on the > charter and use case documents to reach this truly remarkable milestone: > Sure. However, this is not yet a WG at this point in time. If all goes well, this will be approved by the IESG during the telechat on Thursday. Regards, Benoit > > 1300-1500 HST > > > > Monday Afternoon Session I > > > > > Coral 3 > > > > GEN > > > > ianaplan > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifPlanning for > the IANA/NTIA Transition > > > > > > Lehua Suite > > > > INT > > > > pcp > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifPort Control > Protocol > > > > > > *Coral 5 *** > > > > *OPS*** > > > > *lime *** > > > > *https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifLayer > Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment *** > > > > > > Coral 1 > > > > RAI > > > > stir > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifSecure > Telephone Identity Revisited > > > > > > Coral 4 > > > > RTG > > > > bier > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifBit Indexed > Explicit Replication BOF > > > > > > Kahili 1/2 > > > > SEC > > > > mile > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifManaged > Incident Lightweight Exchange > > > > > > Coral 2 > > > > TSV > > > > aqm > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifActive Queue > Management and Packet Scheduling > > > > > > Hibiscus 1/2 > > > > TSV > > > > cdni > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifContent > Delivery Networks Interconnection > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime --------------090602090703090006000909 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------040304040205080400080504" --------------040304040205080400080504 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Greg,

Dear All,

congratulations and many thanks to everyone  who worked hard on the charter and use case documents to reach this truly remarkable milestone:

Sure.
However, this is not yet a WG at this point in time.
If all goes well, this will be approved by the IESG during the telechat on Thursday.

Regards, Benoit

1300-1500 HST

Monday Afternoon Session I


Coral 3

GEN

ianaplan

https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifPlanning for the IANA/NTIA Transition



Lehua Suite

INT

pcp

https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifPort Control Protocol



Coral 5

OPS

lime

https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifLayer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment



Coral 1

RAI

stir

https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifSecure Telephone Identity Revisited



Coral 4

RTG

bier

https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifBit Indexed Explicit Replication BOF



Kahili 1/2

SEC

mile

https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifManaged Incident Lightweight Exchange



Coral 2

TSV

aqm

https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifActive Queue Management and Packet Scheduling



Hibiscus 1/2

TSV

cdni

https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gifContent Delivery Networks Interconnection


 

                Regards,

                                Greg



_______________________________________________
Lime mailing list
Lime@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime

--------------040304040205080400080504 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhEAAQAMIDAAAA//8AAP//AP///6CgoP///////////yH5BAEKAAcALAAAAAAQABAA AAMreLrc/jA6Qmm4d1aCc9tcp1VdMFpiA6yr4LoO275CLNO1etM2i0vAoLCRAAA7 --------------040304040205080400080504-- --------------090602090703090006000909-- From nobody Sun Oct 12 04:20:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CAEE1A02BC for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 04:20:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 fXf8kynpCTcs for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 04:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sideburn.lancs.ac.uk (sideburn.lancs.ac.uk [148.88.17.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3D31A0290 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 04:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ex-1-ht0.lancs.ac.uk ([10.42.18.57] helo=EX-1-HT0.lancs.local) by sideburn.lancs.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XdHBx-0006D2-VC; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:20:02 +0100 Received: from EX-0-MB2.lancs.local ([fe80::9d98:936b:54d1:c531]) by EX-1-HT0.lancs.local ([fe80::d9e8:ad10:d075:a6b6%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:20:01 +0100 From: "King, Daniel" To: Gregory Mirsky , "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Monday session Thread-Index: Ac/lqnhlL/7Hq4uOTp25UUINByEKWQAY9BUA Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 11:20:01 +0000 Message-ID: <65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3236FAE1@EX-0-MB2.lancs.local> References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B85AFD6@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [88.97.23.122] x-iss-local-domain: 1 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3236FAE1EX0MB2lancsloca_"; type="multipart/alternative" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/9uGFjx6ayo_2oRAPWEiazLKWyrw Subject: Re: [Lime] Monday session X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 11:20:07 -0000 --_004_65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3236FAE1EX0MB2lancsloca_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3236FAE1EX0MB2lancsloca_" --_000_65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3236FAE1EX0MB2lancsloca_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Great, looks like a perfect session day/time with very little overlap with = other relevant WGs. Br, Dan. From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky Sent: 12 October 2014 00:28 To: lime@ietf.org Subject: [Lime] Monday session Dear All, congratulations and many thanks to everyone who worked hard on the charter= and use case documents to reach this truly remarkable milestone: 1300-1500 HST Monday Afternoon Session I Coral 3 GEN ianaplan [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Planning for the= IANA/NTIA Transition Lehua Suite INT pcp [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Port Control Pro= tocol Coral 5 OPS lime [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Layer Independen= t OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment Coral 1 RAI stir [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Secure Telephone= Identity Revisited Coral 4 RTG bier [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Bit Indexed Expl= icit Replication BOF Kahili 1/2 SEC mile [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Managed Incident= Lightweight Exchange Coral 2 TSV aqm [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Active Queue Man= agement and Packet Scheduling Hibiscus 1/2 TSV cdni [https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.gif]Content Delivery= Networks Interconnection Regards, Greg --_000_65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3236FAE1EX0MB2lancsloca_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Great, looks like a perfect session day/time with very little overlap = with other relevant WGs.

 

Br, Dan.

 

From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: 12 October 2014 00:28
To: lime@ietf.org
Subject: [Lime] Monday session

 

Dear All,

congratulations and many thanks= to everyone  who worked hard on the charter and use case documents to= reach this truly remarkable milestone:

1300-1500 HST =

Monday Afternoon Session I

Coral 3

GEN

ianaplan

3D"https://d=Planning for the IANA/NTI= A Transition

Lehua Suite

INT

pcp

3D"https://d=Port Control Protocol

Coral = 5<= /o:p>

OPS

lime =

3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/color-palette-4x4.g=Layer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment =

Coral 1

RAI

stir

3D"https://d=Secure Telephone Identity= Revisited

Coral 4

RTG

bier

3D"https://d=Bit Indexed Explicit Repl= ication BOF

Kahili 1/2<= /span>

SEC

mile

3D"https://d=Managed Incident Lightwei= ght Exchange

Coral 2

TSV

aqm

3D"https://d=Active Queue Management a= nd Packet Scheduling

Hibiscus 1/2

TSV

cdni

3D"https://d=Content Delivery Networks= Interconnection

 

     &= nbsp;          Regards,

     &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; Greg

--_000_65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3236FAE1EX0MB2lancsloca_-- --_004_65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3236FAE1EX0MB2lancsloca_ Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif" Content-Description: image001.gif Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.gif"; size=102; creation-date="Sun, 12 Oct 2014 11:20:01 GMT"; modification-date="Sun, 12 Oct 2014 11:20:01 GMT" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 R0lGODlhEAAQAMIDAAAA//8AAP//AP///6CgoP///////////yH5BAEKAAcALAAAAAAQABAAAAMr eLrc/jA6Qmm4d1aCc9tcp1VdMFpiA6yr4LoO275CLNO1etM2i0vAoLCRAAA7 --_004_65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3236FAE1EX0MB2lancsloca_-- From nobody Tue Oct 14 05:33:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39C41A8775; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:33:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 4dygBVJg_rSd; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17A61A876E; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:33:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Benoit Claise" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141014123344.6554.23715.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:33:44 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/a4nqzhqz-GE41MibDOcFOxQkZ_8 Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: [Lime] Benoit Claise's Yes on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:33:46 -0000 Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lime-00-10: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We have not received any feedback from the external review. From nobody Tue Oct 14 05:42:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72BA1A8775 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:33:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 QOEXZWgHzVwb for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184341A876E for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:33:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lime@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141014123300.3168.44746.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:33:00 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/Eed6wegYI3YUkT9uDIX_fb4BdKs X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:42:43 -0700 Subject: [Lime] State changed: charter-ietf-lime-00-10 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:33:01 -0000 State changed to IESG review. URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ From nobody Tue Oct 14 22:24:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBF71A00D8; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:52:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 60uR3i_Db8HN; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FE31A00A9; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:52:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141015005255.20200.49429.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:52:55 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/ZrfVZK79BZyVMB2eHcAaeHrpvqI X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:24:07 -0700 Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: [Lime] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:52:57 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Is the working assumption that the same administrative domain manages all the layers, if you're using what LIME produces? I'm thinking of a VoIP carrier that has one operations group that runs all their SIP servers, another that runs their WAN IP network, and one or more groups that runs their access networks, for example. If that's obviously in scope, out of scope, or silly, please carry on. From nobody Wed Oct 15 10:54:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2323D1A8F3E; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:54:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 CiongbIrac9q; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF621A8F3A; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:54:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Adrian Farrel" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141015175449.5384.77322.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:54:49 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/8X_QNb1ygWJV-mEcLp5BKM64cEU Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: [Lime] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-11: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:54:51 -0000 Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lime-00-11: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A clause crept in between -10 and -11. While I don't want to block on it, I do want to raise it because it is a subject that got a lot of discussion on the LIME mailing list going right back to when it was the TIME mailing list. it is one of the topics that was in the original proposal, but was scoped out to get focus in the work... including management mechanisms to facilitate mapping between OAM mechanisms at different layers This concept was spoken against in strong terms in the RTGWG meeting in Toronto suggesting it is even a dangerous idea. I would suggest, therefore, that if it is to be added to the charter, it should be described in more detail. From nobody Thu Oct 16 05:58:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E481A1B54; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 05:57:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 jvZH4VNThdVp; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 05:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D36E1A1B42; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 05:57:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4323; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413464269; x=1414673869; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=qTTC1+V73L/ZvDc8DvqJ7LZODML10Gk4BIXJSzj3iu8=; b=iEvGtmeF2bY50F2WhWK7kLNnnY9q1dMCOX3nPiJmLNbgeuisihTFWQ4Q 3rOO/HEJwKQnwfh2zGRfWEveUe6aWqLbA7yx7IIIg7+26J0qh9M085COR L3GuLbVR7Kca8yNWh/Uf/tQPZ2caQ1xMc9mY8l3s2wG+zX/wwS3TEDNvn Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsQEAPS/P1StJssW/2dsb2JhbABbg2FZgwWFW7lXiWiHTQKBKwF9hAMBAQQjRBEBEAsEHRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEMAQcBAYg6DbUJlSABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXj2sRAVAHgneBVAEEhi2QGIcSgTA8gwqCco40g3k7gT6BOwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,732,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="213535099" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2014 12:57:46 +0000 Received: from [10.61.211.125] ([10.61.211.125]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9GCviYu007421; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:57:45 GMT Message-ID: <543FC0C8.9080202@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:57:44 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins , The IESG References: <20141015005255.20200.49429.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20141015005255.20200.49429.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080500010309080205000907" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/mmiuvFGqK1bUclcTxa69Nl2euH8 Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:57:54 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080500010309080205000907 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Spencer, > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Is the working assumption that the same administrative domain manages all > the layers, if you're using what LIME produces? > > I'm thinking of a VoIP carrier that has one operations group that runs > all their SIP servers, another that runs their WAN IP network, and one or > more groups that runs their access networks, for example. > > If that's obviously in scope, out of scope, or silly, please carry on. Currently, we have this sentence in the charter The initial scope is restricted to a single administrative domain and may be extended for inter-domain scenarios in future as and when a need rises. Like interprovider-QoS in the past, I don't believe that one ISP will provide visibility to its own OAM results to his neighbor ISP. However, different operations groups from the same company are considered as the same admin domain. At least it was the intend behind the charter sentence. Regards, Benoit > > > --------------080500010309080205000907 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Spencer,
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the working assumption that the same administrative domain manages all
the layers, if you're using what LIME produces? 

I'm thinking of a VoIP carrier that has one operations group that runs
all their SIP servers, another that runs their WAN IP network, and one or
more groups that runs their access networks, for example.

If that's obviously in scope, out of scope, or silly, please carry on.
Currently, we have this sentence in the charter
The initial scope is restricted to a single administrative domain and may be
extended for inter-domain scenarios in future as and when a need rises.
Like interprovider-QoS in the past, I don't believe that one ISP will provide visibility to its own OAM results to his neighbor ISP.
However, different operations groups from the same company are considered as the same admin domain.
At least it was the intend behind the charter sentence.

Regards, Benoit

--------------080500010309080205000907-- From nobody Thu Oct 16 06:19:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C0D1A1B9B for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:19:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 knohi7WnXLqV for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:19:39 -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 A61991A1BA0 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.110] (81-229-83-119-no65.business.telia.com [81.229.83.119]) (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 0A9C418013BE; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:19:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <543FC5F0.7080303@pi.nu> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:19:44 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benoit Claise References: <20141015005255.20200.49429.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <543FC0C8.9080202@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <543FC0C8.9080202@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/eYav832QesJ8hMA7RrcHdACLdtQ Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:19:41 -0000 Benoit, On 2014-10-16 14:57, Benoit Claise wrote: > However, different operations groups from the same company are > considered as the same admin domain. > At least it was the intend behind the charter sentence. I'm not entirely convinced that the assumption that different operator groups within on company will be the same domain. I'm at least aware of one case where I could sell transport capacity on fibers to one part of another company because the in-company group were to slow to deliver. Admittedly this was not an OAM problem per se, but had more to do with how the business were organized. And - yes it was several years ago and was fixed as soon as the top level management were made aware of what was happening. /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Thu Oct 16 06:29:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF6D1A1BD9; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:29:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 A34equfchMXO; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 849F91A1BDD; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:29:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2182; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413466184; x=1414675784; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Otr8/OClf5HRjX+2jQ/6zZhWFgn0E7IFqOk41T2PsRY=; b=EiBoIS6ypFNQcs7sI+05ZogQ20n27ROzY0HlgSuhNi3oTys+mULb22LB jHkWRPSSXJq771znzh3MlacJzlessMVWexLYXfXsxEbM5FIOfoV3cJOak J3GaQwR9OEuTW7K3jsACtepleVPDGmr24q0/wIsZtASpAYCz86PmO5cZQ Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqYEAOvHP1StJssW/2dsb2JhbABbg2HDEYleB4dQAoErAX2EAwEBAwEBAQE1NgoBBQsLIRYPCQMCAQIBFTAGAQwBBQIBAYgyCA3KQAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARePaxEBUAeESwEEhi2QGIcSgTA8gwqCco40gjSBRTsvAQEBAYELgTsBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,732,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="212912639" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2014 13:29:42 +0000 Received: from [10.61.211.125] ([10.61.211.125]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9GDTgLL027486; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:29:42 GMT Message-ID: <543FC846.7040807@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:29:42 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel , The IESG References: <20141015175449.5384.77322.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20141015175449.5384.77322.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/GVLYh-qkawL0WBYq3oYZ6cpnLCk Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-11: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:29:51 -0000 Dear All, Adrian and I had a chat. I want to make sure that the WG designs those models to facilitate the drilling down into different layers. And we don't want to specify an new inter-layer OAM mechanism. So I understand Adrian's reaction below. "facilitate better mapping between information reported from OAM mechanisms that operate in different network layers" better reflects what both of us had in mind, and is now in the charter v12. https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-lime%2Fwithmilestones-00-11.txt&difftype=--html&submit=Go!&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-lime%2Fwithmilestones-00-12.txt Regards, Benoit > Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-lime-00-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A clause crept in between -10 and -11. While I don't want to block on it, > I do want to raise it because it is a subject that got a lot of > discussion on the LIME mailing list going right back to when it was the > TIME mailing list. it is one of the topics that was in the original > proposal, but was scoped out to get focus in the work... > > including management mechanisms to facilitate > mapping between OAM mechanisms at different layers > > This concept was spoken against in strong terms in the RTGWG meeting in > Toronto suggesting it is even a dangerous idea. > > I would suggest, therefore, that if it is to be added to the charter, it > should be described in more detail. > > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime > . > From nobody Thu Oct 16 06:33:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD111A1BDB for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:33:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 ziduEMifg77G for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D700B1A1BDA for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:33:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1008; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413466406; x=1414676006; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OmJBaDMS1FSrQoJMTOB6uS6nJXkg3KOQMwalIpgQpt4=; b=TBQ8/7j9cNa4HVTonteaN8u1qjdKiSJAI/7o9Ehd2d320ZDOqWHX9XM/ lN0VJDrerUNwbBas0cRXZTKs1mANVyzvdxB5aiRjUqQHhFiozr5Z+DnlZ foWvpn6Zx1L61zE32x5mbM3NVCGTk5m9nusvqNSOvj6Yy4wW0R7qAExoh 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEAOvHP1StJssW/2dsb2JhbABb1QaDIQKBKwF9hAMBAQQ4QAEQCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0BBwEBiDrKTQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARqQTQeESwEEnVeHaI40gjSBRTuCeQEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,732,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="208837588" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2014 13:33:24 +0000 Received: from [10.61.211.125] ([10.61.211.125]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9GDXOnV019291; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:33:24 GMT Message-ID: <543FC924.9070705@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:33:24 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Loa Andersson References: <20141015005255.20200.49429.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <543FC0C8.9080202@cisco.com> <543FC5F0.7080303@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <543FC5F0.7080303@pi.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/Xkp3UJylae4OJBC9DqPbCsabfTU Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:33:28 -0000 Loa, > Benoit, > > > On 2014-10-16 14:57, Benoit Claise wrote: >> However, different operations groups from the same company are >> considered as the same admin domain. >> At least it was the intend behind the charter sentence. > > I'm not entirely convinced that the assumption that different operator > groups within on company will be the same domain. > > I'm at least aware of one case where I could sell transport capacity > on fibers to one part of another company because the in-company group > were to slow to deliver. Admittedly this was not an OAM problem per se, > but had more to do with how the business were organized. Exactly. And not something the IETF could solve. And the point is: the different parts of the company would have to collaborate as one "admin domain" if they want to solve that OPS issue. Regards, Benoit > > And - yes it was several years ago and was fixed as soon as the top > level management were made aware of what was happening. > > /Loa > From nobody Thu Oct 16 06:57:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804001A1A18; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:57:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 KAPTmvJGWaZx; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 019741A1A2F; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:57:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2594; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413467839; x=1414677439; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=tGNVORe66bTrt4fwcv6cHvlNq1ftSdJNGKKZZGZSD7Y=; b=mHqi/CYskqAs2sP4aBOPYwxvpbHebGllR0sguL+16+Quw3hM6tz+tR9P pM25q3iH33Jf7XKf+qD7LBkrF67NjsnvbfE0UySD6soNZVqiwwZJJJfra BhPgF7RNQCnH2wIzZkHlkZ9k/T969mS9flK/RCFz1FgX+Mn+bodSbKs4d I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFAD3OP1StJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABbgmsjU00PzBMHh1ACgRYWAX2EAwEBAwEBAQE3NAsFCwIBCDYQJwslAgQOBYg2CAEMykQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXj2sRAR0zB4MtgR4Fhi2JNoIchEaHEoEwPIMKkSaCNIFDbAEBAQGBCzmBAgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,732,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="87492079" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2014 13:57:18 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9GDvHsd011320 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:57:17 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:57:17 -0500 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" Thread-Topic: [Lime] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-11: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHP6KEhEw3E8mB3IECfv+cL2saTdJwzDQsAgAAHtAA= Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:57:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20141015175449.5384.77322.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <543FC846.7040807@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <543FC846.7040807@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.148.163.83] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <056481332ED5A94AAF20E8785D73DBAF@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/hrqeIF1Hcp3sfSzIkKyaSkiOmqI Cc: Adrian Farrel , "lime@ietf.org" , The IESG Subject: Re: [Lime] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-11: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:57:23 -0000 Looks good, Benoit! Thanks Benoit and Adrian! Carlos. On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear All, >=20 > Adrian and I had a chat. > I want to make sure that the WG designs those models to facilitate the dr= illing down into different layers. And we don't want to specify an new inte= r-layer OAM mechanism. > So I understand Adrian's reaction below. >=20 > "facilitate better mapping between information reported from OAM mechanis= ms that operate in different network layers" better reflects what both of u= s had in mind, and is now in the charter v12. >=20 > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2F= doc%2Fcharter-ietf-lime%2Fwithmilestones-00-11.txt&difftype=3D--html&submit= =3DGo!&url2=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-lime%= 2Fwithmilestones-00-12.txt >=20 > Regards, Benoit >=20 >> Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for >> charter-ietf-lime-00-11: No Objection >>=20 >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>=20 >> A clause crept in between -10 and -11. While I don't want to block on it= , >> I do want to raise it because it is a subject that got a lot of >> discussion on the LIME mailing list going right back to when it was the >> TIME mailing list. it is one of the topics that was in the original >> proposal, but was scoped out to get focus in the work... >>=20 >> including management mechanisms to facilitate >> mapping between OAM mechanisms at different layers >>=20 >> This concept was spoken against in strong terms in the RTGWG meeting in >> Toronto suggesting it is even a dangerous idea. >>=20 >> I would suggest, therefore, that if it is to be added to the charter, it >> should be described in more detail. >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Lime mailing list >> Lime@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime >> . >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime From nobody Thu Oct 16 08:08:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3C61A1BBE; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:08:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 HCjU4nMnJuD8; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48D411A1B9B; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id dc16so2475087qab.7 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pjPOllExowXhzU/4fTEzWVhuPbvFoGEkDrLgSLJvhl8=; b=J5yxX6pN2H7YIhNMNlPsnMAIbvO9SCT+TJhgcQKrRSq4OZvUQ00RKCxCzgReQufhyA kcdtHj+0eRBtfZRnDYKIV/Yb1Kj1zqMzeW5KXdhPcIFC81j3Du2lOg1RNpjv973h4qun Q//YHB/69MhU67pZQB5WvZ3y0a93PVLGXkBJ9qIlhAdoyv4zoZmUgzlShTsgG6oIG5Bf nqSxKSh0TjzfS8vCml2SxOrkHT/vsZOIgGEK32F/fuUfAOLnBb8/JF8kkhf3Ws8lm6J3 MOqQLgfWTLtKGfIfkBmpYAy4mNAG3C3+eKt+JIjDZxInRX4r1M/tRgH/ELBqK+BAGoeq b5sg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.69.67 with SMTP id y3mr3033630qai.76.1413472109381; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.170.11 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <543FC0C8.9080202@cisco.com> References: <20141015005255.20200.49429.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <543FC0C8.9080202@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:08:29 -0500 Message-ID: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF To: Benoit Claise Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2d8f6fae7f805058b9e47 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/5aE8Q9zrIGUr3XvAj36GvyntkUc Cc: lime@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [Lime] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:08:35 -0000 --001a11c2d8f6fae7f805058b9e47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, Benoit, On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi Spencer, > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Is the working assumption that the same administrative domain manages all > the layers, if you're using what LIME produces? > > I'm thinking of a VoIP carrier that has one operations group that runs > all their SIP servers, another that runs their WAN IP network, and one or > more groups that runs their access networks, for example. > > If that's obviously in scope, out of scope, or silly, please carry on. > > Currently, we have this sentence in the charter > > The initial scope is restricted to a single administrative domain and may be > extended for inter-domain scenarios in future as and when a need rises. > > Like interprovider-QoS in the past, I don't believe that one ISP will > provide visibility to its own OAM results to his neighbor ISP. > However, different operations groups from the same company are considered > as the same admin domain. > At least it was the intend behind the charter sentence. > > Thanks for the feedback. I agree with your response. I'm still a bit confused about whether a single administrative domain with multiple operations groups is in scope or out of scope. Maybe this doesn't matter (and people will just do the right thing)? Or perhaps it's worth adding a qualifier to "single administrative domain"? But this is a comment, so I'm good whatever happens. Spencer --001a11c2d8f6fae7f805058b9e47 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Benoit,

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise= @cisco.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Hi Spencer,
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the working assumption that the same administrative domain manages all
the layers, if you're using what LIME produces? 
I'm thinking of a VoIP carrier that has one operations group=
 that runs
all their SIP servers, another that runs their WAN IP network, and one or
more groups that runs their access networks, for example.

If that's obviously in scope, out of scope, or silly, please carry on.<=
/pre>
Currently, we have this sentence in the charter
The initial scope is restricted to a single administrative domai=
n and may be
extended for inter-domain scenarios in future as and when a need rises.
Like interprovider-QoS in the past, I don't believe that one ISP will provide visibility to its own OAM results to his neighbor ISP.
However, different operations groups from the same company are considered as the same admin domain.
At least it was the intend behind the charter sentence.


= Thanks for the feedback. I agree with your response.

I'm still a bit confused about whether a single administrative domai= n with multiple operations groups is in scope or out of scope.=C2=A0
<= div>
Maybe this doesn't matter (and people will just do t= he right thing)? Or perhaps it's worth adding a qualifier to "sing= le administrative domain"?

But this is a comm= ent, so I'm good whatever happens.

Spencer=C2= =A0

--001a11c2d8f6fae7f805058b9e47-- From nobody Thu Oct 16 08:20:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F281A1BF6; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:20:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 DXtx_TjUUoRI; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 807921A1BC0; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:20:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7337; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413472845; x=1414682445; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=ob3ngyqtEvdS0mi70paR8CY3wdV86pySNVMpBnN8Oc8=; b=TuF9BqQ3q5VoHnSg1072ca5DFpKZ2rvOuj3W/IYBjQqhbMSURuIZqt4A bPKWgzvY+jkBXphOJUwMc1lLzQK3xNXUlLWVJH0RGcZT/fGNaaRle0fWJ azZO3zeFfw5xR82iba3sd/VFhdmSJ0keFMf0RC5WuIK+CwvFq0ObrGvI/ s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqcEAOzhP1StJssW/2dsb2JhbABbg2GDXoVbuVmJaIdNAoEsAX2EAgEBAQMBI0QRAQULCxgJFggDAgIJAwIBAgE0EQYNAQUCAQGIMggNtTWVFAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARePaxEBUAeCd4FUAQSGLYk2hmKHEoEwPIMKgnKKNoN+g3k7L4EPgTsBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,732,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="213650829" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2014 15:20:21 +0000 Received: from [10.61.84.2] (ams3-vpn-dhcp5123.cisco.com [10.61.84.2]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9GFKKau009993; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:20:20 GMT Message-ID: <543FE233.6090305@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:20:19 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF References: <20141015005255.20200.49429.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <543FC0C8.9080202@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000109040104010300060607" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/ubkdtlcIHgwlnxB27RM3qhHifgU Cc: lime@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [Lime] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:20:48 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000109040104010300060607 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 16/10/2014 17:08, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > Hi, Benoit, > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Benoit Claise > wrote: > > Hi Spencer, >> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for >> charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Is the working assumption that the same administrative domain manages all >> the layers, if you're using what LIME produces? >> I'm thinking of a VoIP carrier that has one operations group that runs >> all their SIP servers, another that runs their WAN IP network, and one or >> more groups that runs their access networks, for example. >> >> If that's obviously in scope, out of scope, or silly, please carry on. > Currently, we have this sentence in the charter > > The initial scope is restricted to a single administrative domain and may be > extended for inter-domain scenarios in future as and when a need rises. > > Like interprovider-QoS in the past, I don't believe that one ISP > will provide visibility to its own OAM results to his neighbor ISP. > However, different operations groups from the same company are > considered as the same admin domain. > At least it was the intend behind the charter sentence. > > > Thanks for the feedback. I agree with your response. > > I'm still a bit confused about whether a single administrative domain > with multiple operations groups is in scope or out of scope. > > Maybe this doesn't matter (and people will just do the right thing)? You're right. I don't think it matters from a modeling point of view. Regards, Benoit > Or perhaps it's worth adding a qualifier to "single administrative > domain"? > > But this is a comment, so I'm good whatever happens. > > Spencer > --------------000109040104010300060607 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 16/10/2014 17:08, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
Hi, Benoit,

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Spencer,
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lime-00-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the working assumption that the same administrative domain manages all
the layers, if you're using what LIME produces? 
I'm thinking of a VoIP carrier that has one operations group that runs
all their SIP servers, another that runs their WAN IP network, and one or
more groups that runs their access networks, for example.

If that's obviously in scope, out of scope, or silly, please carry on.
Currently, we have this sentence in the charter
The initial scope is restricted to a single administrative domain and may be
extended for inter-domain scenarios in future as and when a need rises.
Like interprovider-QoS in the past, I don't believe that one ISP will provide visibility to its own OAM results to his neighbor ISP.
However, different operations groups from the same company are considered as the same admin domain.
At least it was the intend behind the charter sentence.


Thanks for the feedback. I agree with your response.

I'm still a bit confused about whether a single administrative domain with multiple operations groups is in scope or out of scope. 

Maybe this doesn't matter (and people will just do the right thing)?
You're right. I don't think it matters from a modeling point of view.

Regards, Benoit

Or perhaps it's worth adding a qualifier to "single administrative domain"?

But this is a comment, so I'm good whatever happens.

Spencer 


--------------000109040104010300060607-- From nobody Thu Oct 16 09:23:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DA71A6EFC for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:23:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 WS_fK_p_aBPV for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 918E61A6F12 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=130; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413476588; x=1414686188; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=HVnYctqHb6wDRVnzGeC3YVU9Hg8YRKAe4ziRnLjS3zk=; b=kaRg/l9l/s3B+Z2yMnt0gkVpV+VJc+vlSgSqTbIj4wyFMLKzPEAEoXRO Hx1NJyt99p/qS9t/Yig8lW1DDg8WA65nlf2e3JzizRET72gxrYALMCU5X Ox1IqOb7wnIGr8BaOy/V/NsVbqbZNpPMlweoxKiWZEJOLAvWYRPUCMrnD s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvgEAPzvP1StJssW/2dsb2JhbABbkhTHQgFyC4RBQD0WGAMCAQIBSw0IAQGIOqYUpDEBAQEHAgEflR8BBJ1Xh2iONIN5O4J5AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,733,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="208976914" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2014 16:23:06 +0000 Received: from [10.61.84.2] (ams3-vpn-dhcp5123.cisco.com [10.61.84.2]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9GGN6O9031259 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:23:06 GMT Message-ID: <543FF0EA.2020004@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:23:06 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lime@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/irjK-cNJUxNIhN6n7QdAE_OaAzo Subject: [Lime] IETF agenda: LIME slot changed X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:23:10 -0000 Dear all, Note that LIME has been moved to Thursday 1300 Some people flagged a conflict with the BIER BoF Regards, Benoit From nobody Thu Oct 16 09:36:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7591A0004 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:36:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 F4Y1RFrmWajB for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D7D31A0007 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:36:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1239; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413477397; x=1414686997; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject; bh=hPSQ8qdvw/i/ozS6wxDHpdymEDmsBmtFhAefHKMfXSM=; b=WPNx97KR4u2bt9oKvqkLD9/a7whsFU8hRdXtERPfp64jYUnsf8GQTmWY aKDYUEtt1a/WPP7xQuHiZjJ4Hf1y6wIxlTrY5w9JGkhyT1FPE2a/xuPJe J3iuam4aCN0NX2mvC7ZZWMgKky32rhMYy9I8rEHPE4bQoIxyBf6NWf+xC 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqkEAEvzP1StJssW/2dsb2JhbABbg2GJOcNBh02BLwFyC4N5gQgfAR0WGAMCAQIBSw0IAQEWiCQNphCkLQEBAQcBAQEBGgSQSYRWBZZFhxKHaI40g3k7gnkBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,733,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="213067727" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2014 16:36:35 +0000 Received: from [10.61.84.2] (ams3-vpn-dhcp5123.cisco.com [10.61.84.2]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9GGaZoG008993 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:36:35 GMT Message-ID: <543FF413.2040500@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:36:35 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lime@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000100020800040101070301" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/E06XP9fAW77ctNyauHC0D2qSbpM Subject: [Lime] The LIME WG has been created X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:36:39 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000100020800040101070301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, Let me share the news. The LIME WG charter v12 has been approved by the IESG today. Thanks to all who have been involved in the WG creation. The WG chairs are Ron Bonica and Carlos Pignataro. Time to deliver now :-) Regards, Benoit --------------000100020800040101070301 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all,

Let me share the news.
The LIME WG charter v12 has been approved by the IESG today.
Thanks to all who have been involved in the WG creation.
The WG chairs are Ron Bonica and Carlos Pignataro.

Time to deliver now :-)

Regards, Benoit

--------------000100020800040101070301-- From nobody Fri Oct 17 09:57:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C2C1A1AB0; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:27:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 BIN156lKA-Rf; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244A71A1B16; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141017152725.31423.27299.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:27:25 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/hMCdM9WB-KvLMMGNT3LNdjQf2AI X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:57:51 -0700 Cc: lime WG Subject: [Lime] WG Action: Formed Layer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment (lime) X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:27:29 -0000 A new IETF working group has been formed in the Operations and Management Area. For additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs. Layer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment (lime) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Proposed WG Chairs: Carlos Pignataro Ron Bonica Assigned Area Director: Benoit Claise Mailing list Address: lime@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lime/current/maillist.html Charter: Network Operators are increasingly challenged with operational and management limitations in network deployments due to Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) operating at different administrative and technology layers. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of a common architectural OAM management in those different layers and protocols. New work on network virtualization further complicates the layering model and the problems of coordinating OAM between layers and protocols. The absence of a common approach to OAM management has made it difficult for operators to: - Suppress large numbers of unnecessary alarms and notifications related to defects and failures arising in lower layers and visible in each higher layer - Quickly identify root causes of network failures - Coordinate end-to-end performance measurement with the results of performance monitoring at different layers in the network - Correlate defects, faults, and network failures between the different layers to improve efficiency of defect and fault localization and provide better OAM visibility. The LIME working group will concentrate on the operational challenges in consistent handling of end-to-end OAM and coordination of OAM within underlying network layers. This work will enable consistent configuration, reporting, and presentation for the OAM mechanisms used to manage the network, regardless of the layers and technologies, including management mechanisms to facilitate better mapping between information reported from OAM mechanisms that operate in different network layers. It will also produce architectural guidelines for the development of new OAM tools and protocols in both management plane and data plane so that they may be coherent with these mechanisms and more easily integrated from an operational points of view. The working group will work on the following deliverables: - YANG data model(s) for generic layer-independent and technology-independent configuration, reporting and presentation for OAM mechanisms. - An architecture for OAM that can be used as guidance by other IETF working groups developing new OAM protocols or modifying existing OAM protocols, at any layer and for any technology. This guidance will cover both the management and data planes. Existing OAM architectures will be reviewed. - Applicability document: The YANG model(s) specified in this working group must be usable and extensible by the existing OAM technologies. This usability and extensibility must be demonstrated, for example with IP Ping, traceroute, BFD, and LSP Ping. Note the technology-specific data model extensions should ideally be worked on in the respective working groups. The working group will explore and document use-cases for converged management of OAM in multi-layer and multi-technology networks that triggered this work. The use cases will consider scenarios that include (but are not limited to) those that rely upon a centralized control point responsible for the overall OAM management and those that assume the delegation of layer-specific OAM management control points. The working group will decide later whether the use case document needs to be published as an RFC. If the working group finds it necessary to work on an information model before the data model, it might do so. The working group will decide later whether the information model needs to be published as an RFC. The initial scope is restricted to a single administrative domain and may be extended for inter-domain scenarios in future as and when a need rises. The working group will not develop any new OAM protocols. The LIME WG is not chartered to work on information or data models specific to any data plane or forwarding plane technology that is developed outside of the IETF. However, it is the intention that the generic information and data models produced by the working group should be applicable to multiple layers and technologies in a technology agnostic fashion. Therefore, it is anticipated that the working group will closely coordinate its activities with other SDOs (including, but not limited to the ITU-T, MEF, IEEE, BBF and 3GPP) to ensure that the generic models are harmonized with work done in those SDOs and are applicable to many technologies. Milestones: Feb 2015 - Adopt the WG draft on YANG data model(s) May 2015 - Adopt the WG draft on LIME Architecture Aug 2015 - Adopt the WG draft for Applicability of the generic model Sep 2015 - Submit the YANG model(s) document to IESG as a Proposed Standards RFC Nov 2015 - Submit the Architecture document to IESG for review as an informational RFC Apr 2016 - Submit the Applicability document to IESG for review as an Informational RFC Apr 2016 - Recharter or conclude From nobody Mon Oct 20 11:28:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B961A8AA7 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:28:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 QrIkjQA-bhoS for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0113.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.113]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B62131A8AEF for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1049.19; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:28:29 +0000 Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.91]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.91]) with mapi id 15.00.1049.012; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:28:29 +0000 From: Ronald Bonica To: "lime@ietf.org" , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" Thread-Topic: IETF 91 Thread-Index: Ac/skwy4TIYT93z3SfWxsqY8GuUiHQ== Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:28:28 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB442; x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-forefront-prvs: 03706074BC x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(199003)(189002)(76576001)(97736003)(2656002)(64706001)(85852003)(40100003)(50986999)(20776003)(85306004)(106356001)(31966008)(86362001)(229853001)(33646002)(2501002)(99396003)(77096002)(107046002)(101416001)(21056001)(66066001)(80022003)(108616004)(46102003)(4396001)(54356999)(107886001)(105586002)(92566001)(120916001)(122556002)(99286002)(76482002)(74316001)(95666004)(87936001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB442; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/aqcKRgwKtDJLRPpfJN-vFahtWU0 Subject: [Lime] IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:28:35 -0000 Folks, It's time to start planning the agenda for IETF 91. Would the authors of the following drafts please send email indicated wheth= er you intend to present and how much time you need: - draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps - draft-king-opsawg-lime-multi-layer-oam-use-case-00 - draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-00 Also, if anyone else needs agenda time, please reply to this message. Ron Bonica From nobody Wed Oct 22 21:03:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06EB1A8892 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:03:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 zdUGCNRtREKa for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 545091A8887 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:03:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3144; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414036992; x=1415246592; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=CTsYYhUvdjjso1HwXspu+M8n79yF8riZz4yAIHIIpXc=; b=g/06hNCILUC385cZc6g0/2lFvYlHQGbvRVYLdG9Y5HUmlUD4MjZjuk0N QkMU7WrAbTWYWZTPQC9R/XVavI5MbfrqDC8HFeu28TnroSX3SLW9TRLPT 7MIgIoC+wBNopQi4z5xDydYDu7aB1dLVq3uy5pbOVMj4OmVuZH3DJOelD 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: At8FAJR8SFStJA2F/2dsb2JhbABcgkhGVFzLBoFwh00CgQ0WAXILhAQBBC1eAQweViYBBBuIOQ2jQqN+AQEIAgEfkCWDZYEeBZIFhEaIQzyDDZEzg3iCNIEDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,773,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="89499919" Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2014 04:03:11 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9N43AWH013093 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 04:03:10 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.8.180]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 23:03:10 -0500 From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" To: "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Generic YANG Model for OAM Thread-Index: Ac/udj+865bERM+7RL2f2HnG42xolw== Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 04:03:09 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.91.179] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF3D8E3xmbrcdx08ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/OYSG72VqjWvvubFx99vOHF85chM Subject: [Lime] Generic YANG Model for OAM X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 04:03:14 -0000 --_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF3D8E3xmbrcdx08ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all We have published draft-tissa-yang-oam-model, this ID present a YANG model = that provide generic management framework for OAM. Please take a moment to review and provide comments. Below is the URL to th= e draft. : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-01 Thanks Tissa --_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF3D8E3xmbrcdx08ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all


We have published draft-tissa-yang-oam-model, this ID present a YANG model = that provide generic management framework for OAM.

 

Please take a moment to review and provide comments.= Below is the URL to the draft.

 

 

:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-01

 

Thanks

Tissa

--_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF3D8E3xmbrcdx08ciscoc_-- From nobody Thu Oct 23 12:29:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8E41ACEDE for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:29:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 AICKsLWbA-dM for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0619.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::619]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 427EC1ACECE for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DB4PR04MB508.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.239.156) by DB4PR04MB507.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.239.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1054.13; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:28:40 +0000 Received: from DB4PR04MB508.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.239.156]) by DB4PR04MB508.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.239.156]) with mapi id 15.00.1054.004; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:28:40 +0000 From: "Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)" To: "rbonica@juniper.net" Thread-Topic: [Lime] IETF 91 Thread-Index: AQHP7veNTvhe81toNUa5MV7cdq7ZcQ== Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:28:40 +0000 Message-ID: <89C25959-1FAB-484F-9E04-4E3413B1583B@coriant.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [2602:252:d21:5660:226:bbff:fe67:cade] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR04MB507; x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-forefront-prvs: 0373D94D15 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(189002)(199003)(50986999)(54356999)(99396003)(85306004)(21056001)(31966008)(122556002)(40100003)(110136001)(120916001)(16601075003)(36756003)(20776003)(80022003)(46102003)(97736003)(19617315012)(2501002)(16236675004)(2656002)(87936001)(85852003)(19580395003)(19580405001)(83716003)(92726001)(86362001)(95666004)(92566001)(106116001)(105586002)(106356001)(4396001)(33656002)(76482002)(101416001)(2351001)(1941001)(15202345003)(15975445006)(82746002)(107046002)(104396001)(7059028)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR04MB507; H:DB4PR04MB508.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_89C259591FAB484F9E044E3413B1583Bcoriantcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: coriant.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/L07yZrDNtvp5hh9nyXVAh8Gq_YQ Cc: "lime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:29:09 -0000 --_000_89C259591FAB484F9E044E3413B1583Bcoriantcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * From: Ronald Bonica > * To: "lime at ietf.org" >, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" > * Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:28:28 +0000 * List-id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment= \(LIME\) discussion list." > ________________________________ Folks, It's time to start planning the agenda for IETF 91. Would the authors of the following drafts please send email indicated wheth= er you intend to present and how much time you need: - draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps - draft-king-opsawg-lime-multi-layer-oam-use-case-00 - draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-00 Also, if anyone else needs agenda time, please reply to this message. Ron Bonica Hi Ron, I'd like a 10 minute slot to present draft-lam-summary-L0-L2-layer-independ= ent-00 which is entitled "Exisiting Support for Network Operations in Multi= layer Transport Networks based upon a unified approach to OAM (Layer0 -Laye= r2)". That draft will be posted before the deadline. thanks, pd --_000_89C259591FAB484F9E044E3413B1583Bcoriantcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
Folks,

It's time to start planning the agenda for IETF 91.

Would the authors of the following drafts please send email indicated wheth=
er you intend to present and how much time you need:

- draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps
- draft-king-opsawg-lime-multi-layer-oam-use-case-00
- draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-00

Also, if anyone else needs agenda time, please reply to this message.

Ron Bonica


Hi Ron,
I'd like a 10 minute slot to present draft-lam-summary-L0-L2-layer-ind=
ependent-00 which is entitled "Exisiting Support for Network Operation=
s in Multilayer Transport Networks based upon a unified approach to OAM (La=
yer0 -Layer2)". 
That draft will be posted before the deadline.
 
thanks,
pd




--_000_89C259591FAB484F9E044E3413B1583Bcoriantcom_-- From nobody Thu Oct 23 12:36:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772821ACFDA for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:36:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 V7nsOLY3SBWo for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0720.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::720]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F0311ACFD7 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1049.19; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:35:58 +0000 Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.210]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.210]) with mapi id 15.00.1049.012; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:35:58 +0000 From: Ronald Bonica To: "Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)" Thread-Topic: [Lime] IETF 91 Thread-Index: AQHP7veNTIYT93z3SfWxsqY8GuUiHZw+Ex8w Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:35:58 +0000 Message-ID: <1e011b0d5fdf487b9c2ce46ec056967f@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <89C25959-1FAB-484F-9E04-4E3413B1583B@coriant.com> In-Reply-To: <89C25959-1FAB-484F-9E04-4E3413B1583B@coriant.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.14] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB443; x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-forefront-prvs: 0373D94D15 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(21056001)(108616004)(92566001)(15975445006)(20776003)(33646002)(66066001)(19625215002)(76482002)(110136001)(106116001)(40100003)(85306004)(99286002)(19617315012)(50986999)(95666004)(105586002)(85852003)(54356999)(74316001)(76176999)(80022003)(16601075003)(4396001)(31966008)(122556002)(97736003)(76576001)(19609705001)(120916001)(19580395003)(2656002)(15202345003)(86362001)(107046002)(19580405001)(101416001)(106356001)(77096002)(87936001)(46102003)(99396003)(16236675004)(19300405004)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB443; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1e011b0d5fdf487b9c2ce46ec056967fCO1PR05MB442namprd05pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/ig0mEWgqhSEWQM6iB09_kPS14og Cc: "lime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:36:24 -0000 --_000_1e011b0d5fdf487b9c2ce46ec056967fCO1PR05MB442namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You are on the agenda From: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving) [mailto:paul.doolan@coriant.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:29 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: lime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91 * From: Ronald Bonica > * To: "lime at ietf.org" >, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" > * Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:28:28 +0000 * List-id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment= \(LIME\) discussion list." > ________________________________ Folks, It's time to start planning the agenda for IETF 91. Would the authors of the following drafts please send email indicated wheth= er you intend to present and how much time you need: - draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps - draft-king-opsawg-lime-multi-layer-oam-use-case-00 - draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-00 Also, if anyone else needs agenda time, please reply to this message. Ron Bonica Hi Ron, I'd like a 10 minute slot to present draft-lam-summary-L0-L2-layer-independ= ent-00 which is entitled "Exisiting Support for Network Operations in Multi= layer Transport Networks based upon a unified approach to OAM (Layer0 -Laye= r2)". That draft will be posted before the deadline. thanks, pd --_000_1e011b0d5fdf487b9c2ce46ec056967fCO1PR05MB442namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You are  on the agenda

 

From: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irv= ing) [mailto:paul.doolan@coriant.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:29 PM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: lime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91

 

Folks,
 
It's time to start planning the agenda for=
 IETF 91.
 
Would the authors of the following drafts =
please send email indicated whether you intend to present and how much time=
 you need:
 
- draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps
- draft-king-opsawg-lime-multi-layer-oam-u=
se-case-00
- draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-00
 
Also, if anyone else needs agenda time, pl=
ease reply to this message.
 
Ron Bonica
 
Hi Ron,
I'd like a 10 minute slot to present draft=
-lam-summary-L0-L2-layer-independent-00 which is entitled "Exisiting S=
upport for Network Operations in Multilayer Transport Networks based upon a=
 unified approach to OAM (Layer0 -Layer2)". 
That draft will be posted before the deadl=
ine.
thanks,
pd
 
 

 

 

--_000_1e011b0d5fdf487b9c2ce46ec056967fCO1PR05MB442namprd05pro_-- From nobody Fri Oct 24 03:42:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A991A8983 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:42:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.084 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1.506, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 viTds1xpsdiX for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:42:07 -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 15E531A038B for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BNZ71994; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:42:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:42:05 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:41:53 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Ronald Bonica , "lime@ietf.org" , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" Thread-Topic: IETF 91 Thread-Index: Ac/skwy4TIYT93z3SfWxsqY8GuUiHQC41huQ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:41:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: 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: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/1w6cShqIHQA_TGtz6nY5PxNWuU8 Cc: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , Mishael Wexler , Tom Taylor Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:42:09 -0000 SGksIFJvbjoNCldlIGxpa2UgdG8gcmVxdWVzdCBhIHRpbWVzbG90IHRvIGRpc2N1c3MgZHJhZnQt ZWRwcm9wLW9wc2F3Zy1tdWx0aS1sYXllci1vYW0tcHMuDQpQbGVhc2UgYWxsb2NhdGUgdXMgMTVt aW51dGVzLCB0aGFua3MhDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMhDQotUWluIChvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgYXV0aG9ycyBh bmQgY29udHJpYnV0b3JzKQ0KLS0tLS3Tyrz+1K28/i0tLS0tDQq3orz+yMs6IExpbWUgW21haWx0 bzpsaW1lLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddILT6se0gUm9uYWxkIEJvbmljYQ0Kt6LLzcqxvOQ6IDIw MTTE6jEw1MIyMcjVIDI6MjgNCsrVvP7IyzogbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZzsgQ2FybG9zIFBpZ25hdGFy byAoY3BpZ25hdGEpDQrW98ziOiBbTGltZV0gSUVURiA5MQ0KDQpGb2xrcywNCg0KSXQncyB0aW1l IHRvIHN0YXJ0IHBsYW5uaW5nIHRoZSBhZ2VuZGEgZm9yIElFVEYgOTEuDQoNCldvdWxkIHRoZSBh dXRob3JzIG9mIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgZHJhZnRzIHBsZWFzZSBzZW5kIGVtYWlsIGluZGljYXRl ZCB3aGV0aGVyIHlvdSBpbnRlbmQgdG8gcHJlc2VudCBhbmQgaG93IG11Y2ggdGltZSB5b3UgbmVl ZDoNCg0KLSBkcmFmdC1lZHByb3Atb3BzYXdnLW11bHRpLWxheWVyLW9hbS1wcw0KLSBkcmFmdC1r aW5nLW9wc2F3Zy1saW1lLW11bHRpLWxheWVyLW9hbS11c2UtY2FzZS0wMA0KLSBkcmFmdC10eGgt b3BzYXdnLWxpbWUtZ2FwLWFuYWx5c2lzLTAwDQoNCkFsc28sIGlmIGFueW9uZSBlbHNlIG5lZWRz IGFnZW5kYSB0aW1lLCBwbGVhc2UgcmVwbHkgdG8gdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlLg0KDQpSb24gQm9uaWNh DQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpMaW1l IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KTGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1h bi9saXN0aW5mby9saW1lDQo= From nobody Fri Oct 24 03:52:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76571A038B for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:51:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 J06TN780grIa for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D8601A8993 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:51:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7297; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414147917; x=1415357517; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Q9v+7w9QRvZ7KNOf0dMZ63GRgNw5qHN2byurc30fz5k=; b=Ogj0i5UuTCb5Rcts2uSX0aQxUlWedZzZNHDnGPVQ1b52SWn34FkQ7s34 7Q+eoatRZ6DYoZBGVwn9kCaaQTaqfxPq2mbnixtFdV0LaSxz84idJ8p+D pBSLuEN3e6DeaRtCx3HUUE522om7TAxXlEVG2zrHyF0auHnQ1C4szIX8V 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah0FAOQuSlStJV2b/2dsb2JhbABcgkhGVFgEyyuBcIdNAoEMFgF9hAIBAQEELUwQAgEIEQQBAQsdBzIUCQgBAQQBDQUIAYg4DckWAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF5AHAQEeMQYBgy2BHgWSBYRGiEM8gw2RMoN4bAGBDjmBAwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,779,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="366142433" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2014 10:51:56 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9OApuq4013524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:51:56 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.58]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:51:55 -0500 From: "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" , "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Generic YANG Model for OAM Thread-Index: Ac/udj+865bERM+7RL2f2HnG42xolwAJbcLg Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:51:55 +0000 Message-ID: <315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D346E47E3@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.65.34.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D346E47E3xmbrcdx15ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/zYGQOkS2g0lG1QG9eKHMcAUno7o Cc: "Nobo Akiya \(nobo\)" Subject: Re: [Lime] Generic YANG Model for OAM X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:52:00 -0000 --_000_315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D346E47E3xmbrcdx15ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Authors, Please consider the following comments on the draft: 1/ Section 4: Reference to "Section X" to be updated with the correct value= . 2/ The same alphabet (x) being used to denote the "deprecated" in status an= d "rpc" in flags is a bit confusing. Is it possible to change either one of= them for better clarity? 3/ Sec 6: CCM-Interval : missing enum for a few commonly used BFD interva= ls like 50 ms. I think Nobo has already commented regarding this earlier re= ferring to draft-ietf-bfd-intervals. See earlier discussion here. 4/ Sec1: s/The YANG data mode presented/ The YANG data model presented 5/ Figure 1: s/sub tec/sub tech 6/ Separate timers for Tx and Rx: BFD has the notion of keep-alive messages= (CCM) being sent from both ends of the MEP at potentially different rates.= Can this be generalized in the common YANG model? In particular, the local= MEP can declare a connectivity fault if the keepalives are not received by= it from the remoteMEP for a threshold timer based on the negotiated interv= als. Please note that the threshold timer varies per remoteMEP. 7/ Sec 6: s/Rve 5/Rev 5 8/ Sec 6: s/Assigm/ Assign (multiple instances) Thanks Prasad From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tissa Senevirathne (= tsenevir) Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:33 AM To: lime@ietf.org Subject: [Lime] Generic YANG Model for OAM Dear all We have published draft-tissa-yang-oam-model, this ID present a YANG model = that provide generic management framework for OAM. Please take a moment to review and provide comments. Below is the URL to th= e draft. : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-01 Thanks Tissa --_000_315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D346E47E3xmbrcdx15ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Authors,

Please consider the following comments on the draft:=

1/ Section 4: Reference to “Section X” t= o be updated with the correct value.

2/ The same alphabet (x) being used to denote the &#= 8220;deprecated” in status and “rpc” in flags is a bit co= nfusing. Is it possible to change either one of them for better clarity?

3/ Sec 6:   CCM-Interval : missing enum fo= r a few commonly used BFD intervals like 50 ms. I think Nobo has already co= mmented regarding this earlier referring to draft-ietf-bfd-intervals. See e= arlier discussion here.

4/ Sec1: s/The YANG data mode presented/ The YANG da= ta model presented

5/ Figure 1: s/sub tec/sub tech

6/ Separate timers for Tx and Rx: BFD has the notion= of keep-alive messages (CCM) being sent from both ends of the MEP at poten= tially different rates. Can this be generalized in the common YANG model? I= n particular, the local MEP can declare a connectivity fault if the keepalives are not received by it from the rem= oteMEP for a threshold timer based on the negotiated intervals. Please note= that the threshold timer varies per remoteMEP.

7/ Sec 6: s/Rve 5/Rev 5

8/ Sec 6: s/Assigm/ Assign (multiple instances)=

Thanks

Prasad

 

From: Lime [ma= ilto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:33 AM
To: lime@ietf.org
Subject: [Lime] Generic YANG Model for OAM

 

Dear all


We have published draft-tissa-yang-oam-model, this ID present a YANG model = that provide generic management framework for OAM.

 

Please take a moment to review and provide comments.= Below is the URL to the draft.

 

 

:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-01

 

Thanks

Tissa

--_000_315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D346E47E3xmbrcdx15ciscoc_-- From nobody Fri Oct 24 06:10:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E2561A001D for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:10:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.789 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 bNN5aHQjIvfU for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECA301A0065 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id rl12so2296006iec.3 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:10:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9Vyl1NFWJgvEZ4IBFqocaKU/mJDtWaNUCNHu+joI49o=; b=Su7ygZ04niLzy66SkfWA9GxoeYPD0z/UdfH7HZ2WEEzqOwvrg6XO962e2vLozJvGoS C0XlzpF5W/gKT8wt+eV8NNiDI20Whqy7kA4vstJoKEFTTWLIxTdcSK8cad7pzhbVPxok tRWea+2dlux+dathaFZeIl5Pw7Y2rrSR/8i1sG2vbWYZ/eDOVMEcmirt0xncTnWd/ydI U7uOSrIASIWyRwnIh7NDJsO5oBLpDLsgU49ZtPNVhhI5lPLC5Iak6GMw5J889nPYHiVw 86myPqILtQvfS0VBjp2B7kz3ICnGDlILFAu9TGJtDm6gm5rcebVe13yG2cohq/REb+gZ 5xBQ== X-Received: by 10.50.3.97 with SMTP id b1mr3599153igb.12.1414156214430; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([207.112.112.38]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fk8sm877375igb.9.2014.10.24.06.10.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <544A4FAF.3000207@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:10:07 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Qin Wu , Ronald Bonica , "lime@ietf.org" , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/kmmxNRX4qbhihjq51VMAOlxlsEk Cc: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , Mishael Wexler Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:10:21 -0000 We already have 20 minutes. Sorry, should have included you in the correspondence. I'll forward the messages. Probability that I make it to Hawaii is zero. I'm glad you'll be presenting. Tom On 24/10/2014 6:41 AM, Qin Wu wrote: > Hi, Ron: > We like to request a timeslot to discuss draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps. > Please allocate us 15minutes, thanks! > > Regards! > -Qin (on behalf of authors and contributors) > -----ÓʼþÔ­¼þ----- > ·¢¼þÈË: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] ´ú±í Ronald Bonica > ·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2014Äê10ÔÂ21ÈÕ 2:28 > ÊÕ¼þÈË: lime@ietf.org; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > Ö÷Ìâ: [Lime] IETF 91 > > Folks, > > It's time to start planning the agenda for IETF 91. > > Would the authors of the following drafts please send email indicated whether you intend to present and how much time you need: > > - draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps > - draft-king-opsawg-lime-multi-layer-oam-use-case-00 > - draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-00 > > Also, if anyone else needs agenda time, please reply to this message. > > Ron Bonica > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime > From nobody Fri Oct 24 06:23:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16F11A0069 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:23:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.412 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 jnRR6lad-oVT for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sideburn.lancs.ac.uk (sideburn.lancs.ac.uk [148.88.17.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF2C1A0104 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ex-1-ht0.lancs.ac.uk ([10.42.18.57] helo=EX-1-HT0.lancs.local) by sideburn.lancs.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XhepU-0002f2-Oi for lime@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:22:56 +0100 Received: from EX-0-MB2.lancs.local ([fe80::9d98:936b:54d1:c531]) by EX-1-HT0.lancs.local ([fe80::d9e8:ad10:d075:a6b6%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:22:56 +0100 From: "King, Daniel" To: "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Lime] IETF 91 Thread-Index: Ac/skwy4TIYT93z3SfWxsqY8GuUiHQC41huQAANDhYAAAnMAAA== Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:22:56 +0000 Message-ID: <65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3238448D@EX-0-MB2.lancs.local> References: <544A4FAF.3000207@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <544A4FAF.3000207@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [31.6.63.91] x-iss-local-domain: 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/NFyYbZBVH0RucOz307X_j8i_Qxs Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:23:36 -0000 SGkgQWxsLCANCg0KQXNzdW1pbmcgbm9uZSBvZiB0aGUgb3RoZXIgdXNlIGNhc2UgSS1EIGF1dGhv cnMgcmVxdWVzdGVkIGEgdGltZSBzbG90LCBwbGVhc2UgYXNzaWduIDEwIG1pbnV0ZXMgZm9yIGEg cXVpY2sgb3ZlcnZpZXcgb2YgZHJhZnQta2luZy1vcHNhd2ctbGltZS1tdWx0aS1sYXllci1vYW0t dXNlLWNhc2UuDQoNCkJyLCBEYW4uIA0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJv bTogTGltZSBbbWFpbHRvOmxpbWUtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFRvbSBU YXlsb3INClNlbnQ6IDI0IE9jdG9iZXIgMjAxNCAxNDoxMA0KVG86IFFpbiBXdTsgUm9uYWxkIEJv bmljYTsgbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZzsgQ2FybG9zIFBpZ25hdGFybyAoY3BpZ25hdGEpDQpDYzogUm9t YXNjYW51LCBEYW4gKERhbik7IE1pc2hhZWwgV2V4bGVyDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW0xpbWVdIElF VEYgOTENCg0KV2UgYWxyZWFkeSBoYXZlIDIwIG1pbnV0ZXMuIFNvcnJ5LCBzaG91bGQgaGF2ZSBp bmNsdWRlZCB5b3UgaW4gdGhlIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRlbmNlLiBJJ2xsIGZvcndhcmQgdGhlIG1lc3Nh Z2VzLg0KDQpQcm9iYWJpbGl0eSB0aGF0IEkgbWFrZSBpdCB0byBIYXdhaWkgaXMgemVyby4gSSdt IGdsYWQgeW91J2xsIGJlIHByZXNlbnRpbmcuDQoNClRvbQ0KDQpPbiAyNC8xMC8yMDE0IDY6NDEg QU0sIFFpbiBXdSB3cm90ZToNCj4gSGksIFJvbjoNCj4gV2UgbGlrZSB0byByZXF1ZXN0IGEgdGlt ZXNsb3QgdG8gZGlzY3VzcyBkcmFmdC1lZHByb3Atb3BzYXdnLW11bHRpLWxheWVyLW9hbS1wcy4N Cj4gUGxlYXNlIGFsbG9jYXRlIHVzIDE1bWludXRlcywgdGhhbmtzIQ0KPiANCj4gUmVnYXJkcyEN Cj4gLVFpbiAob24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIGF1dGhvcnMgYW5kIGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycykNCj4gLS0tLS3T yrz+1K28/i0tLS0tDQo+ILeivP7IyzogTGltZSBbbWFpbHRvOmxpbWUtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9y Z10gtPqx7SBSb25hbGQgQm9uaWNhDQo+ILeiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOoxMNTCMjHI1SAyOjI4DQo+ IMrVvP7IyzogbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZzsgQ2FybG9zIFBpZ25hdGFybyAoY3BpZ25hdGEpDQo+INb3 zOI6IFtMaW1lXSBJRVRGIDkxDQo+IA0KPiBGb2xrcywNCj4gDQo+IEl0J3MgdGltZSB0byBzdGFy dCBwbGFubmluZyB0aGUgYWdlbmRhIGZvciBJRVRGIDkxLg0KPiANCj4gV291bGQgdGhlIGF1dGhv cnMgb2YgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBkcmFmdHMgcGxlYXNlIHNlbmQgZW1haWwgaW5kaWNhdGVkIHdo ZXRoZXIgeW91IGludGVuZCB0byBwcmVzZW50IGFuZCBob3cgbXVjaCB0aW1lIHlvdSBuZWVkOg0K PiANCj4gLSBkcmFmdC1lZHByb3Atb3BzYXdnLW11bHRpLWxheWVyLW9hbS1wcw0KPiAtIGRyYWZ0 LWtpbmctb3BzYXdnLWxpbWUtbXVsdGktbGF5ZXItb2FtLXVzZS1jYXNlLTAwDQo+IC0gZHJhZnQt dHhoLW9wc2F3Zy1saW1lLWdhcC1hbmFseXNpcy0wMA0KPiANCj4gQWxzbywgaWYgYW55b25lIGVs c2UgbmVlZHMgYWdlbmRhIHRpbWUsIHBsZWFzZSByZXBseSB0byB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UuDQo+IA0K PiBSb24gQm9uaWNhDQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBMaW1lIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBMaW1lQGlldGYub3JnDQo+IGh0dHBz Oi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbGltZQ0KPiANCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkxpbWUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpM aW1lQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2xpbWUN Cg== From nobody Fri Oct 24 06:30:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D3A1A0072 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:30:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 9dPgqSy83VWz for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8826C1A0081 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:30:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3006; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414157415; x=1415367015; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=1RvquJl9O9K/IN+A3yFh0mOD6nyOkHqO6emmpfmr8VU=; b=PFkQSLk8f4PxWyMiIBwzxJi2eD9e8hCJf2cJpsRqM8pMpTmwaXFFOZw6 nwrGHxdYZxkdQMR3X4Yg3uY9iEnQdhwK5Br5lW8L8L9QPUZBgCTIEIu4M evNqyGekfkRwXqev6UaJ9FDUl4bX71CLzCXXwAS7Yu99UlzMtRAzqWaI1 c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjUFAPtSSlStJV2T/2dsb2JhbABcDoJdI1RYBIMCyh0Kh00CG24WAX2EAgEBAQMBAQEBIBE6CwUHBAIBBgIRBAEBAQICIwMCAgIlCxQBCAgBAQQOBYg4CQEMl0qcX5R8AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSBLI5KEQEdGBsHBoJxNoEeAQSPZ4Iei1iBMYNJkTKDOEBsgQ85gQMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,780,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="366342671" Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2014 13:30:15 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9ODUEx3016567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:30:14 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:30:13 -0500 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: "King, Daniel" Thread-Topic: [Lime] IETF 91 Thread-Index: Ac/skwy4TIYT93z3SfWxsqY8GuUiHQC41huQAA/WLIAAAHKXAAAAQR6A Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:30:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <544A4FAF.3000207@gmail.com> <65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3238448D@EX-0-MB2.lancs.local> In-Reply-To: <65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3238448D@EX-0-MB2.lancs.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.150.76.243] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <18E08DAA55908249BFE7841A72257BD5@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/fvXsLgnH4_hREKrHA7fkDBKT-CY Cc: "lime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:30:19 -0000 RGFuLA0KDQpTb3VuZHMgZ29vZCDigJQgdGhhbmsgeW91Lg0KDQpDYXJsb3MuDQoNCj4gT24gT2N0 IDI0LCAyMDE0LCBhdCA5OjIyIEFNLCBLaW5nLCBEYW5pZWwgPGQua2luZ0BsYW5jYXN0ZXIuYWMu dWs+IHdyb3RlOg0KPiANCj4gSGkgQWxsLCANCj4gDQo+IEFzc3VtaW5nIG5vbmUgb2YgdGhlIG90 aGVyIHVzZSBjYXNlIEktRCBhdXRob3JzIHJlcXVlc3RlZCBhIHRpbWUgc2xvdCwgcGxlYXNlIGFz c2lnbiAxMCBtaW51dGVzIGZvciBhIHF1aWNrIG92ZXJ2aWV3IG9mIGRyYWZ0LWtpbmctb3BzYXdn LWxpbWUtbXVsdGktbGF5ZXItb2FtLXVzZS1jYXNlLg0KPiANCj4gQnIsIERhbi4gDQo+IA0KPiAt LS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBMaW1lIFttYWlsdG86bGltZS1ib3Vu Y2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgVG9tIFRheWxvcg0KPiBTZW50OiAyNCBPY3RvYmVy IDIwMTQgMTQ6MTANCj4gVG86IFFpbiBXdTsgUm9uYWxkIEJvbmljYTsgbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZzsg Q2FybG9zIFBpZ25hdGFybyAoY3BpZ25hdGEpDQo+IENjOiBSb21hc2NhbnUsIERhbiAoRGFuKTsg TWlzaGFlbCBXZXhsZXINCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtMaW1lXSBJRVRGIDkxDQo+IA0KPiBXZSBh bHJlYWR5IGhhdmUgMjAgbWludXRlcy4gU29ycnksIHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIGluY2x1ZGVkIHlvdSBp biB0aGUgY29ycmVzcG9uZGVuY2UuIEknbGwgZm9yd2FyZCB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZXMuDQo+IA0KPiBQ cm9iYWJpbGl0eSB0aGF0IEkgbWFrZSBpdCB0byBIYXdhaWkgaXMgemVyby4gSSdtIGdsYWQgeW91 J2xsIGJlIHByZXNlbnRpbmcuDQo+IA0KPiBUb20NCj4gDQo+IE9uIDI0LzEwLzIwMTQgNjo0MSBB TSwgUWluIFd1IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4gSGksIFJvbjoNCj4+IFdlIGxpa2UgdG8gcmVxdWVzdCBhIHRp bWVzbG90IHRvIGRpc2N1c3MgZHJhZnQtZWRwcm9wLW9wc2F3Zy1tdWx0aS1sYXllci1vYW0tcHMu DQo+PiBQbGVhc2UgYWxsb2NhdGUgdXMgMTVtaW51dGVzLCB0aGFua3MhDQo+PiANCj4+IFJlZ2Fy ZHMhDQo+PiAtUWluIChvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgYXV0aG9ycyBhbmQgY29udHJpYnV0b3JzKQ0KPj4g LS0tLS3pgq7ku7bljp/ku7YtLS0tLQ0KPj4g5Y+R5Lu25Lq6OiBMaW1lIFttYWlsdG86bGltZS1i b3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSDku6PooaggUm9uYWxkIEJvbmljYQ0KPj4g5Y+R6YCB5pe26Ze0OiAy MDE05bm0MTDmnIgyMeaXpSAyOjI4DQo+PiDmlLbku7bkuro6IGxpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IENhcmxv cyBQaWduYXRhcm8gKGNwaWduYXRhKQ0KPj4g5Li76aKYOiBbTGltZV0gSUVURiA5MQ0KPj4gDQo+ PiBGb2xrcywNCj4+IA0KPj4gSXQncyB0aW1lIHRvIHN0YXJ0IHBsYW5uaW5nIHRoZSBhZ2VuZGEg Zm9yIElFVEYgOTEuDQo+PiANCj4+IFdvdWxkIHRoZSBhdXRob3JzIG9mIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcg ZHJhZnRzIHBsZWFzZSBzZW5kIGVtYWlsIGluZGljYXRlZCB3aGV0aGVyIHlvdSBpbnRlbmQgdG8g cHJlc2VudCBhbmQgaG93IG11Y2ggdGltZSB5b3UgbmVlZDoNCj4+IA0KPj4gLSBkcmFmdC1lZHBy b3Atb3BzYXdnLW11bHRpLWxheWVyLW9hbS1wcw0KPj4gLSBkcmFmdC1raW5nLW9wc2F3Zy1saW1l LW11bHRpLWxheWVyLW9hbS11c2UtY2FzZS0wMA0KPj4gLSBkcmFmdC10eGgtb3BzYXdnLWxpbWUt Z2FwLWFuYWx5c2lzLTAwDQo+PiANCj4+IEFsc28sIGlmIGFueW9uZSBlbHNlIG5lZWRzIGFnZW5k YSB0aW1lLCBwbGVhc2UgcmVwbHkgdG8gdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBSb24gQm9uaWNh DQo+PiANCj4+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f DQo+PiBMaW1lIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPj4gTGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu aWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9saW1lDQo+PiANCj4gDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IExpbWUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+ IExpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9s aW1lDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+ IExpbWUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IExpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9saW1lDQoNCg== From nobody Fri Oct 24 10:25:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204AB1A8727 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:25:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 WxPzrxNaZmQH for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A49641A88AF for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:24:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11155; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414171499; x=1415381099; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Kgsy4T57ecOXtHd1C0bKJyIbrjF2Rj4IEntqsz7Bg8k=; b=J9XgvSD4jBfAdyVthKD3u1SfelOWj5GrSdufy6PCUlsAWAPOCCEHeePY TE54C8+ZByL683XV/a4zG0VSamkTygL8ue4Q5IthEsJWcv/3Az8uTUDR+ NSu+fvJCbNqHwyS1mIHNTSIbCdqdIJU4pT5pDotHmjqs5PbFniYvvq0jt I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiQFAIeKSlStJV2P/2dsb2JhbABcgkhGVFgEyzqBcIdNAoEIFgF9hAIBAQEELUwQAgEIEQQBAQsdBzIUCQgBAQQBDQUIAYg4Dcp1AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF5AHAQEeMQYBgy2BHgWPUoIzhEaIQzyDDYMtUo0zg3hsAYEOOYEDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,781,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="366249376" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2014 17:24:58 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9OHOvEt004068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:24:57 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.8.180]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:24:57 -0500 From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" To: "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" , "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Generic YANG Model for OAM Thread-Index: Ac/udj+865bERM+7RL2f2HnG42xolwAJbcLgAESj5NA= Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:24:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: <315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D346E47E3@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D346E47E3@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.91.179] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF3DF9Axmbrcdx08ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/phJ2y1fRNOS4JmO2sHXawFyJZgU Cc: "Nobo Akiya \(nobo\)" Subject: Re: [Lime] Generic YANG Model for OAM X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:25:23 -0000 --_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF3DF9Axmbrcdx08ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Prasad Thanks for the comments. Please see in-line From: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:52 AM To: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir); lime@ietf.org Cc: Nobo Akiya (nobo) Subject: RE: Generic YANG Model for OAM Hello Authors, Please consider the following comments on the draft: 1/ Section 4: Reference to "Section X" to be updated with the correct value= . [Answer] Thanks will be updated. 2/ The same alphabet (x) being used to denote the "deprecated" in status an= d "rpc" in flags is a bit confusing. Is it possible to change either one of= them for better clarity? [Answer] x in the tree is how it is generated from pyang tool. If you read = section 5, x is explained as denotion of rpc. 3/ Sec 6: CCM-Interval : missing enum for a few commonly used BFD interva= ls like 50 ms. I think Nobo has already commented regarding this earlier re= ferring to draft-ietf-bfd-intervals. See earlier discussion here. [Answer] CCM will be removed from the gen-YANG. As that is technology speci= fic. It will be moved to technology specific. 4/ Sec1: s/The YANG data mode presented/ The YANG data model presented [Answer] ack 5/ Figure 1: s/sub tec/sub tech [Answer] Ack 6/ Separate timers for Tx and Rx: BFD has the notion of keep-alive messages= (CCM) being sent from both ends of the MEP at potentially different rates.= Can this be generalized in the common YANG model? In particular, the local= MEP can declare a connectivity fault if the keepalives are not received by= it from the remoteMEP for a threshold timer based on the negotiated interv= als. Please note that the threshold timer varies per remoteMEP. [Answer] Firstly CCM will be removed. Secondly, architecturally we will hav= e generic counters and choice /case statement to extend the counters to inc= lude/augment technology specific extensions. Believe these will address wha= t has been requested above. 7/ Sec 6: s/Rve 5/Rev 5 [Answer] Ack 8/ Sec 6: s/Assigm/ Assign (multiple instances) [Answer] Ack Thanks Prasad From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tissa Senevirathne (= tsenevir) Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:33 AM To: lime@ietf.org Subject: [Lime] Generic YANG Model for OAM Dear all We have published draft-tissa-yang-oam-model, this ID present a YANG model = that provide generic management framework for OAM. Please take a moment to review and provide comments. Below is the URL to th= e draft. : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-01 Thanks Tissa --_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF3DF9Axmbrcdx08ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Prasad

 

Thanks for the comment= s. Please see in-line

 

From: Vengada = Prasad Govindan (venggovi)
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:52 AM
To: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir); lime@ietf.org
Cc: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
Subject: RE: Generic YANG Model for OAM

 

Hello Authors,

Please consider the following comments on the draft:=

1/ Section 4: Reference to “Section X” t= o be updated with the correct value.

[Answer] Thanks will b= e updated.

 

2/ The same alphabet (x) being used to denote the &#= 8220;deprecated” in status and “rpc” in flags is a bit co= nfusing. Is it possible to change either one of them for better clarity?

[Answer] x in the tree= is how it is generated from pyang tool. If you read section 5, x is explai= ned as denotion of rpc.

3/ Sec 6:   CCM-Interval : missing enum fo= r a few commonly used BFD intervals like 50 ms. I think Nobo has already co= mmented regarding this earlier referring to draft-ietf-bfd-intervals. See e= arlier discussion here.

[Answer] CCM will be r= emoved from the gen-YANG. As that is technology specific. It will be moved = to technology specific.

4/ Sec1: s/The YANG data mode presented/ The YANG da= ta model presented

[Answer] ack

5/ Figure 1: s/sub tec/sub tech

[Answer] Ack

6/ Separate timers for Tx and Rx: BFD has the notion= of keep-alive messages (CCM) being sent from both ends of the MEP at poten= tially different rates. Can this be generalized in the common YANG model? I= n particular, the local MEP can declare a connectivity fault if the keepalives are not received by it from the rem= oteMEP for a threshold timer based on the negotiated intervals. Please note= that the threshold timer varies per remoteMEP.

[Answer] Firstly CCM w= ill be removed. Secondly, architecturally we will have generic counters and= choice /case statement to extend the counters to include/augment technolog= y specific extensions. Believe these will address what has been requested above.

 

7/ Sec 6: s/Rve 5/Rev 5

[Answer] Ack

8/ Sec 6: s/Assigm/ Assign (multiple instances)=

[Answer] Ack

Thanks

Prasad

 

From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:33 AM
To: lime@ietf.org
Subject: [Lime] Generic YANG Model for OAM

 

Dear all


We have published draft-tissa-yang-oam-model, this ID present a YANG model = that provide generic management framework for OAM.

 

Please take a moment to review and provide comments.= Below is the URL to the draft.

 

 

:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-01

 

Thanks

Tissa

--_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF3DF9Axmbrcdx08ciscoc_-- From nobody Fri Oct 24 11:54:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57FBD1A8822 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:54:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 XwjWJfMcHqvO for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0784.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:784]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E81E71A88C2 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB444.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1049.19; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:54:23 +0000 Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.14]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.14]) with mapi id 15.01.0006.000; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:54:22 +0000 From: Ronald Bonica To: "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Meeting at IETF 91 Thread-Index: Ac/vu8hHEFt+fX3ARcagRhubeqKryA== Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:54:22 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB444; x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-forefront-prvs: 0374433C81 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(189002)(199003)(4396001)(33646002)(2656002)(97736003)(85852003)(99286002)(87936001)(66066001)(77096002)(46102003)(31966008)(558084003)(92566001)(106356001)(85306004)(120916001)(86362001)(108616004)(76576001)(105586002)(40100003)(122556002)(107886001)(107046002)(20776003)(2501002)(64706001)(80022003)(74316001)(21056001)(54356999)(229853001)(95666004)(99396003)(110136001)(50986999)(101416001)(76482002)(2351001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB444; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/6hG_DBvb_nc8BJFYwIw-zIlqLE4 Subject: [Lime] Meeting at IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:54:49 -0000 Folks, Would anyone be willing to take minute for the IETF 91 lime meeting? Serve = as Jabber scribe? Volunteers will be rewarded generously! Ron Bonica From nobody Fri Oct 24 19:07:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EA41A6F0B for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:07:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.084 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1.506, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 tkbpTchyKEEg for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:07:40 -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 629481A6EF9 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BOA24846; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 02:07:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 03:07:35 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:07:22 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Tom Taylor , Ronald Bonica , "lime@ietf.org" , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" Thread-Topic: IETF 91 Thread-Index: Ac/skwy4TIYT93z3SfWxsqY8GuUiHQC41huQ//+kw4D//qm7gA== Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 02:07:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: <544A4FAF.3000207@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <544A4FAF.3000207@gmail.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: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/ZRdDbxL5El5pKd7200qhHoWpI_A Cc: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , Mishael Wexler Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 02:07:43 -0000 U3VyZSwgSSBjYW4gZG8gdGhhdC4gVGhhbmtzIGZvciBoZWxwaW5nIGFzayBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2Yg dGVhbS4NCkFzIHlvdSBrbm93LCBkcmFmdC13dy1vcHNhd2ctbXVsdGktbGF5ZXItb2FtIGhhcyBi ZWVuIG1hcmtlZCANCmFzIHJlcGxhY2VkIGJ5IGRyYWZ0LWVkcHJvcC1vcHNhd2ctbXVsdGktbGF5 ZXItb2FtLXBzIGluIHRoZSANCklFVEYgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRzIGRhdGFiYXNlLg0KDQpSZWdh cmRzIQ0KLVFpbg0KLS0tLS3Tyrz+1K28/i0tLS0tDQq3orz+yMs6IFRvbSBUYXlsb3IgW21haWx0 bzp0b20udGF5bG9yLnN0ZHNAZ21haWwuY29tXSANCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOoxMNTCMjTI1SAy MToxMA0KytW8/sjLOiBRaW4gV3U7IFJvbmFsZCBCb25pY2E7IGxpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IENhcmxv cyBQaWduYXRhcm8gKGNwaWduYXRhKQ0Ks63LzTogUm9tYXNjYW51LCBEYW4gKERhbik7IE1pc2hh ZWwgV2V4bGVyDQrW98ziOiBSZTogSUVURiA5MQ0KDQpXZSBhbHJlYWR5IGhhdmUgMjAgbWludXRl cy4gU29ycnksIHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIGluY2x1ZGVkIHlvdSBpbiB0aGUgY29ycmVzcG9uZGVuY2Uu IEknbGwgZm9yd2FyZCB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZXMuDQoNClByb2JhYmlsaXR5IHRoYXQgSSBtYWtlIGl0 IHRvIEhhd2FpaSBpcyB6ZXJvLiBJJ20gZ2xhZCB5b3UnbGwgYmUgcHJlc2VudGluZy4NCg0KVG9t DQoNCk9uIDI0LzEwLzIwMTQgNjo0MSBBTSwgUWluIFd1IHdyb3RlOg0KPiBIaSwgUm9uOg0KPiBX ZSBsaWtlIHRvIHJlcXVlc3QgYSB0aW1lc2xvdCB0byBkaXNjdXNzIGRyYWZ0LWVkcHJvcC1vcHNh d2ctbXVsdGktbGF5ZXItb2FtLXBzLg0KPiBQbGVhc2UgYWxsb2NhdGUgdXMgMTVtaW51dGVzLCB0 aGFua3MhDQo+IA0KPiBSZWdhcmRzIQ0KPiAtUWluIChvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgYXV0aG9ycyBhbmQg Y29udHJpYnV0b3JzKQ0KPiAtLS0tLdPKvP7Urbz+LS0tLS0NCj4gt6K8/sjLOiBMaW1lIFttYWls dG86bGltZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSC0+rHtIFJvbmFsZCBCb25pY2ENCj4gt6LLzcqxvOQ6 IDIwMTTE6jEw1MIyMcjVIDI6MjgNCj4gytW8/sjLOiBsaW1lQGlldGYub3JnOyBDYXJsb3MgUGln bmF0YXJvIChjcGlnbmF0YSkNCj4g1vfM4jogW0xpbWVdIElFVEYgOTENCj4gDQo+IEZvbGtzLA0K PiANCj4gSXQncyB0aW1lIHRvIHN0YXJ0IHBsYW5uaW5nIHRoZSBhZ2VuZGEgZm9yIElFVEYgOTEu DQo+IA0KPiBXb3VsZCB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycyBvZiB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGRyYWZ0cyBwbGVhc2Ug c2VuZCBlbWFpbCBpbmRpY2F0ZWQgd2hldGhlciB5b3UgaW50ZW5kIHRvIHByZXNlbnQgYW5kIGhv dyBtdWNoIHRpbWUgeW91IG5lZWQ6DQo+IA0KPiAtIGRyYWZ0LWVkcHJvcC1vcHNhd2ctbXVsdGkt bGF5ZXItb2FtLXBzDQo+IC0gZHJhZnQta2luZy1vcHNhd2ctbGltZS1tdWx0aS1sYXllci1vYW0t dXNlLWNhc2UtMDANCj4gLSBkcmFmdC10eGgtb3BzYXdnLWxpbWUtZ2FwLWFuYWx5c2lzLTAwDQo+ IA0KPiBBbHNvLCBpZiBhbnlvbmUgZWxzZSBuZWVkcyBhZ2VuZGEgdGltZSwgcGxlYXNlIHJlcGx5 IHRvIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZS4NCj4gDQo+IFJvbiBCb25pY2ENCj4gDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IExpbWUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+ IExpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9s aW1lDQo+IA0K From nobody Fri Oct 24 19:20:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040851A6F5D for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:20:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.76 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.76 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 1TT-PKpnJ35u for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:20:33 -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 048BC1A6F0B for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:20:32 -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 BOA25450; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 02:20:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 03:20:30 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:20:25 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" , "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" , "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Generic YANG Model for OAM Thread-Index: Ac/udj+865bERM+7RL2f2HnG42xolwAJbcLgAESj5NAAEsehsA== Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 02:20:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D346E47E3@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: 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_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8460099Enkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/1E3D80gJG3WQFg7yUCNOHe1Baok Cc: "Nobo Akiya \(nobo\)" Subject: Re: [Lime] Generic YANG Model for OAM X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 02:20:36 -0000 --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8460099Enkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 QWdyZWUgdG8gcmVtb3ZlIENDTSBzaW5jZSBDQ00gaXMgdmVyeSBFVEggQ0ZNIHNwZWNpZmljLg0K QWxzbyBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gbmVlZHMgdG8gYmUgcmVtb3ZlZCBhcyB3ZWxsIHNpbmNlIGl0IGlz IGFsc28gRVRIIENGTSBzcGVjaWZpYy4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcyENCi1RaW4NCreivP7IyzogTGltZSBb bWFpbHRvOmxpbWUtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBUaXNzYSBTZW5ldmlyYXRobmUgKHRz ZW5ldmlyKQ0Kt6LLzcqxvOQ6IDIwMTTE6jEw1MIyNcjVIDE6MjUNCsrVvP7IyzogVmVuZ2FkYSBQ cmFzYWQgR292aW5kYW4gKHZlbmdnb3ZpKTsgbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0Ks63LzTogTm9ibyBBa2l5 YSAobm9ibykNCtb3zOI6IFJlOiBbTGltZV0gR2VuZXJpYyBZQU5HIE1vZGVsIGZvciBPQU0NCg0K SGkgUHJhc2FkDQoNClRoYW5rcyBmb3IgdGhlIGNvbW1lbnRzLiBQbGVhc2Ugc2VlIGluLWxpbmUN Cg0KRnJvbTogVmVuZ2FkYSBQcmFzYWQgR292aW5kYW4gKHZlbmdnb3ZpKQ0KU2VudDogRnJpZGF5 LCBPY3RvYmVyIDI0LCAyMDE0IDM6NTIgQU0NClRvOiBUaXNzYSBTZW5ldmlyYXRobmUgKHRzZW5l dmlyKTsgbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86bGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCkNjOiBOb2JvIEFraXlh IChub2JvKQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUkU6IEdlbmVyaWMgWUFORyBNb2RlbCBmb3IgT0FNDQoNCkhlbGxv IEF1dGhvcnMsDQpQbGVhc2UgY29uc2lkZXIgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBjb21tZW50cyBvbiB0aGUg ZHJhZnQ6DQoxLyBTZWN0aW9uIDQ6IFJlZmVyZW5jZSB0byChsFNlY3Rpb24gWKGxIHRvIGJlIHVw ZGF0ZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgY29ycmVjdCB2YWx1ZS4NCltBbnN3ZXJdIFRoYW5rcyB3aWxsIGJlIHVw ZGF0ZWQuDQoNCjIvIFRoZSBzYW1lIGFscGhhYmV0ICh4KSBiZWluZyB1c2VkIHRvIGRlbm90ZSB0 aGUgobBkZXByZWNhdGVkobEgaW4gc3RhdHVzIGFuZCChsHJwY6GxIGluIGZsYWdzIGlzIGEgYml0 IGNvbmZ1c2luZy4gSXMgaXQgcG9zc2libGUgdG8gY2hhbmdlIGVpdGhlciBvbmUgb2YgdGhlbSBm b3IgYmV0dGVyIGNsYXJpdHk/DQpbQW5zd2VyXSB4IGluIHRoZSB0cmVlIGlzIGhvdyBpdCBpcyBn ZW5lcmF0ZWQgZnJvbSBweWFuZyB0b29sLiBJZiB5b3UgcmVhZCBzZWN0aW9uIDUsIHggaXMgZXhw bGFpbmVkIGFzIGRlbm90aW9uIG9mIHJwYy4NCjMvIFNlYyA2OiAgIENDTS1JbnRlcnZhbCA6IG1p c3NpbmcgZW51bSBmb3IgYSBmZXcgY29tbW9ubHkgdXNlZCBCRkQgaW50ZXJ2YWxzIGxpa2UgNTAg bXMuIEkgdGhpbmsgTm9ibyBoYXMgYWxyZWFkeSBjb21tZW50ZWQgcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoaXMgZWFy bGllciByZWZlcnJpbmcgdG8gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1iZmQtaW50ZXJ2YWxzLiBTZWUgZWFybGllciBk aXNjdXNzaW9uIGhlcmU8aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsLWFyY2hpdmUvd2ViL3RpbWUv Y3VycmVudC9tc2cwMDA5Mi5odG1sPi4NCltBbnN3ZXJdIENDTSB3aWxsIGJlIHJlbW92ZWQgZnJv bSB0aGUgZ2VuLVlBTkcuIEFzIHRoYXQgaXMgdGVjaG5vbG9neSBzcGVjaWZpYy4gSXQgd2lsbCBi ZSBtb3ZlZCB0byB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IHNwZWNpZmljLg0KNC8gU2VjMTogcy9UaGUgWUFORyBkYXRh IG1vZGUgcHJlc2VudGVkLyBUaGUgWUFORyBkYXRhIG1vZGVsIHByZXNlbnRlZA0KW0Fuc3dlcl0g YWNrDQo1LyBGaWd1cmUgMTogcy9zdWIgdGVjL3N1YiB0ZWNoDQpbQW5zd2VyXSBBY2sNCjYvIFNl cGFyYXRlIHRpbWVycyBmb3IgVHggYW5kIFJ4OiBCRkQgaGFzIHRoZSBub3Rpb24gb2Yga2VlcC1h bGl2ZSBtZXNzYWdlcyAoQ0NNKSBiZWluZyBzZW50IGZyb20gYm90aCBlbmRzIG9mIHRoZSBNRVAg YXQgcG90ZW50aWFsbHkgZGlmZmVyZW50IHJhdGVzLiBDYW4gdGhpcyBiZSBnZW5lcmFsaXplZCBp biB0aGUgY29tbW9uIFlBTkcgbW9kZWw/IEluIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIsIHRoZSBsb2NhbCBNRVAgY2Fu IGRlY2xhcmUgYSBjb25uZWN0aXZpdHkgZmF1bHQgaWYgdGhlIGtlZXBhbGl2ZXMgYXJlIG5vdCBy ZWNlaXZlZCBieSBpdCBmcm9tIHRoZSByZW1vdGVNRVAgZm9yIGEgdGhyZXNob2xkIHRpbWVyIGJh c2VkIG9uIHRoZSBuZWdvdGlhdGVkIGludGVydmFscy4gUGxlYXNlIG5vdGUgdGhhdCB0aGUgdGhy ZXNob2xkIHRpbWVyIHZhcmllcyBwZXIgcmVtb3RlTUVQLg0KW0Fuc3dlcl0gRmlyc3RseSBDQ00g d2lsbCBiZSByZW1vdmVkLiBTZWNvbmRseSwgYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJhbGx5IHdlIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSBn ZW5lcmljIGNvdW50ZXJzIGFuZCBjaG9pY2UgL2Nhc2Ugc3RhdGVtZW50IHRvIGV4dGVuZCB0aGUg Y291bnRlcnMgdG8gaW5jbHVkZS9hdWdtZW50IHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgc3BlY2lmaWMgZXh0ZW5zaW9u cy4gQmVsaWV2ZSB0aGVzZSB3aWxsIGFkZHJlc3Mgd2hhdCBoYXMgYmVlbiByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgYWJv dmUuDQoNCjcvIFNlYyA2OiBzL1J2ZSA1L1JldiA1DQpbQW5zd2VyXSBBY2sNCjgvIFNlYyA2OiBz L0Fzc2lnbS8gQXNzaWduIChtdWx0aXBsZSBpbnN0YW5jZXMpDQpbQW5zd2VyXSBBY2sNClRoYW5r cw0KUHJhc2FkDQoNCkZyb206IExpbWUgW21haWx0bzpsaW1lLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9u IEJlaGFsZiBPZiBUaXNzYSBTZW5ldmlyYXRobmUgKHRzZW5ldmlyKQ0KU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXks IE9jdG9iZXIgMjMsIDIwMTQgOTozMyBBTQ0KVG86IGxpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmxpbWVA aWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbTGltZV0gR2VuZXJpYyBZQU5HIE1vZGVsIGZvciBPQU0NCg0K RGVhciBhbGwNCg0KV2UgaGF2ZSBwdWJsaXNoZWQgZHJhZnQtdGlzc2EteWFuZy1vYW0tbW9kZWws IHRoaXMgSUQgcHJlc2VudCBhIFlBTkcgbW9kZWwgdGhhdCBwcm92aWRlIGdlbmVyaWMgbWFuYWdl bWVudCBmcmFtZXdvcmsgZm9yIE9BTS4NCg0KUGxlYXNlIHRha2UgYSBtb21lbnQgdG8gcmV2aWV3 IGFuZCBwcm92aWRlIGNvbW1lbnRzLiBCZWxvdyBpcyB0aGUgVVJMIHRvIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4NCg0K DQo6ICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXRpc3NhLWxpbWUteWFu Zy1vYW0tbW9kZWwtMDENCg0KVGhhbmtzDQpUaXNzYQ0K --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8460099Enkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Agree to remove CCM since CCM is very ETH CFM specific.

Also Notification needs to be removed as well since it is also ET= H CFM specific.

 

Regards!

-Qin

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Lime [m= ailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA= =B1=ED Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
=B7=A2= =CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2014=C4=EA10=D4=C225=C8=D5 1:25
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi); lime@ietf.org
=B3=AD=CB=CD: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
=D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [Lime] Generic YANG Model for OAM

 

Hi Pras= ad

&n= bsp;

Thanks = for the comments. Please see in-line

&n= bsp;

From: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:52 AM
To: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir); = lime@ietf.org
Cc: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
Subject: RE: Generic YANG Model for OAM

 

Hello Authors,

Please consider the following c= omments on the draft:

1/ Section 4: Reference to =A1= =B0Section X=A1=B1 to be updated with the correct value.<= /p>

[Answer= ] Thanks will be updated.

&n= bsp;

2/ The same alphabet (x) being = used to denote the =A1=B0deprecated=A1=B1 in status and =A1=B0rpc=A1=B1 in = flags is a bit confusing. Is it possible to change either one of them for b= etter clarity?

[Answer= ] x in the tree is how it is generated from pyang tool. If you read section= 5, x is explained as denotion of rpc.

3/ Sec 6:   CCM-Inter= val : missing enum for a few commonly used BFD intervals like 50 ms. I thin= k Nobo has already commented regarding this earlier referring to draft-ietf= -bfd-intervals. See earlier discussion here.

[Answer= ] CCM will be removed from the gen-YANG. As that is technology specific. It= will be moved to technology specific.

4/ Sec1: s/The YANG data mode p= resented/ The YANG data model presented

[Answer= ] ack

5/ Figure 1: s/sub tec/sub tech=

[Answer= ] Ack

6/ Separate timers for Tx and R= x: BFD has the notion of keep-alive messages (CCM) being sent from both end= s of the MEP at potentially different rates. Can this be generalized in the= common YANG model? In particular, the local MEP can declare a connectivity fault if the keepalives are not recei= ved by it from the remoteMEP for a threshold timer based on the negotiated = intervals. Please note that the threshold timer varies per remoteMEP.<= /o:p>

[Answer= ] Firstly CCM will be removed. Secondly, architecturally we will have gener= ic counters and choice /case statement to extend the counters to include/au= gment technology specific extensions. Believe these will address what has been requested above.

&n= bsp;

7/ Sec 6: s/Rve 5/Rev 5

[Answer= ] Ack

8/ Sec 6: s/Assigm/ Assign (mul= tiple instances)

[Answer= ] Ack

Thanks

Prasad

&n= bsp;

From: Lime [mailto= :lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:33 AM
To: lime@ietf.org
Subject: [Lime] Generic YANG Model for OAM

 

Dear all


We have published draft-tissa-yang-oam-model, this ID present a YANG model = that provide generic management framework for OAM.

 

Please take a moment to review = and provide comments. Below is the URL to the draft.

 

 

:     =   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-01

 

Thanks

Tissa

--_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8460099Enkgeml501mbschi_-- From nobody Sun Oct 26 03:14:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8F61A7028; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 03:14:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 x0DrP5LAZx3q; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 03:14:30 -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 BB0991A7021; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 03:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.129] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (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 BC383180131A; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:14:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:14:29 +0100 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lime@ietf.org, Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/hx4inSyZDomGzoV03-Ec_oyLBS8 Subject: [Lime] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 10:14:33 -0000 Folks, I have what I hope is a simple question, and that it will only reveal that I'm not up to speed on yang. I trying to figure out the relationship between the generic yang models in e.g. draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model and the specific models we do for different variants of e.g. mpls oam. I guess we have a structure more or less like this mpls | |- ldp | |-ldp oam | |- rsvp-te | | | |- rsvp-te oam | |- lsp ping | | | |- lsp ping oam | |- etc Where does the generic work fit in? /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Sun Oct 26 05:40:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1B71A854B for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 05:40:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 G16gRvz3hmy1 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 05:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3829B1A8546 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 05:40:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1872; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414327220; x=1415536820; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=dw5q4hb9m0dGwW79kT/wgwHKGdQzY+YF0A08vobcgBo=; b=XWYz2/B9Qf3b7Xyn2Z1HEi6W+C3yTPk4Of3vQOjBc/4ionk6MLCAduhw CLcljn5aa2Fm27KTtrgvDDCtTBhQjKuxnYxbMIC4FiAkatqh5qPQvqKk1 3LjK7e0U1QoLnw0mObZLYLYecmlYH6Zvx1dp9/tc7/u6pvfOW5lFrpj3o 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq4FADfrTFStJA2G/2dsb2JhbABcgmsjVFzMcYdNgQUWAXILg3kQgQsBCwF0JwSIVAEMpBijRwEBAQEBBQEBAQEBAQEBARUEkQSDOIEeBZIHhEiHEoExg0mRNIN4gjSBAwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,790,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="366778727" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2014 12:40:19 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9QCeIZG015399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:40:18 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 07:40:18 -0500 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Tentative LIME Agenda for Hawaii Thread-Index: AQHP8Rn/r6JOTq1wd0C8IxDQGG0Chw== Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:40:17 +0000 Message-ID: <6018027E-31FD-49ED-98D6-6AD3A45A2421@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.82.228.247] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6018027E31FD49ED98D66AD3A45A2421ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/sSryZhDP4gHrku5F9BTPXqy8tus Subject: [Lime] Tentative LIME Agenda for Hawaii X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:40:21 -0000 --_000_6018027E31FD49ED98D66AD3A45A2421ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, LIME, We have posted a tentative LIME Agenda for IETF91, which you can find at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda/lime/ Please review and let us know if there is something we missed. Remember also, I-D submission cutoff: 2014-10-27 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, inc= luding -00) by UTC 23:59 Thanks, Carlos & Ron. --_000_6018027E31FD49ED98D66AD3A45A2421ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <708B062834D2C64E8C906344AE214341@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, LIME,

We have posted a tentative LIME Agenda for IETF91, which yo= u can find at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda/lime/

Please review and let us know if there is something we miss= ed.

Remember also, I-D submission cutoff:
2014-10-27 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for= all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59

Thanks,

Carlos & Ron.
--_000_6018027E31FD49ED98D66AD3A45A2421ciscocom_-- From nobody Sun Oct 26 11:50:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC681A0393; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:50:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 yRwgmXtNvCQk; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F60B1A0395; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:50:34 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-5b-544cea9cad5e Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 52.7F.05330.C9AEC445; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:35:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 14:50:32 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: Loa Andersson , "lime@ietf.org" , "Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question Thread-Index: AQHP8QWoq6L8YEpRpUWvu3QGOKSPx5xCtlHQ Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:50:32 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B86EE25@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPuO7cVz4hBq/uc1p0bNvOZPFv7hxm i1tLV7Ja/H5+m9mBxWPJkp9MHrOmt7EFMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZdxb0ctUcIqn4lz3ddYG xsOcXYycHBICJhLHTy9jgrDFJC7cW8/WxcjFISRwhFHi0IX37BDOckaJHw+vMYJUsQkYSbzY 2MMOYosIlErsm70MKM7BwSygLHHqrgxIWFjAUqLjxS2oEiuJJz9+sYGUiAC1zmsMAgmzCKhK POw6CbaXV8BX4nvXVrDpQgIqEtvOTGEFsTmBahatucMCYjMC3fb91BqwemYBcYlbT+ZD3Swg sWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/rBC2ksTH3/PZIep1JBbs/sQGYWtLLFv4mhlir6DEyZlPWCYwis1CMnYW kpZZSFpmIWlZwMiyipGjtDi1LDfdyGATIzBujkmw6e5g3PPS8hCjAAejEg/vglCfECHWxLLi ytxDjNIcLErivLNq5wULCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYPQqWexjOH2egdjx/3Je axjOHLWtnt7r+/Xkkrcf3Y5UZmuoW8okbpt39vfPrTd0fARUlVSjV+hXKE57t7Ux7IxH5cpJ Nawui7bOr5gb+JHvxsGMMFaGZ5fSOLJut6qtWJrLOtOzVJeN61HJSSdFqQkbtm6SONDmdEZ2 hvXerN1hQXPzdTu/zlBiKc5INNRiLipOBAChqlCkfAIAAA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/2QyX0b-VeY7grNFDMSqw_C0b02k Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lime] [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:50:38 -0000 Hi Loa, I think that your question is not simple at all and it would be a great to = discuss how Generic OAM proposal is related to MPLS OAM at the meeting. Personally, I think that there's no separate LDP, RSVP-TE or EVPN, Segment = Routing (as far as transport layer for the latter two) OAMs but one MPLS OA= M with extensions/special cases for IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP and Segment Routing ne= tworks. Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Loa Andersson Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:14 AM To: lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question Folks, I have what I hope is a simple question, and that it will only reveal that = I'm not up to speed on yang. I trying to figure out the relationship between the generic yang models in = e.g. draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model and the specific models we do for diff= erent variants of e.g. mpls oam. I guess we have a structure more or less like this mpls | |- ldp | |-ldp oam | |- rsvp-te | | | |- rsvp-te oam | |- lsp ping | | | |- lsp ping oam | |- etc Where does the generic work fit in? /Loa --=20 Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 _______________________________________________ Rtg-yang-coord mailing list Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord From nobody Sun Oct 26 17:03:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC941A1B5A; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 enWJQctSstET; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CFDB1A1B6A; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9R03XCb002032; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:03:33 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9R03OgR001928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:03:27 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Gregory Mirsky'" , "'Loa Andersson'" , , References: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B86EE25@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B86EE25@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:03:20 -0000 Message-ID: <000601cff179$707a8c10$516fa430$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGuTtmLR0JtP8jl1thBqlYiJvncbQIIekC6nHYNOxA= Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21056.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.648-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--11.648-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +f/wAVSGjujuqBuVmgcCWiZm6wdY+F8KQKuv8uQBDjobQ3XP/Jy4srQn Y6ZuVLghlJXBvk7vV78btzXOkWU9Db0Xs0pxYyWVkE7MrqaPYs0ZKp0SZ4P+dU/N5GQtssoCM+p +NpswZmrPVbpsm8zN9R6i22jnAC+aTkaqbB0m3sLM1jffIgQXhvDfYikgJILntXl9IxEPXOqKLb gZyq471ydN4fsjEEgTzZpvrLjwrYswJ6xbTjBa5nPrqnZdfJhvB4Ntzrj5dXT1gF7PCEF9bpXPK 5yaPhuRRnUgijdt6WSjT363D9PEXmFqPXSLpNdAQr2qXCJMSV91k+gP1XamtJsoi2XrUn/JyeMt MD9QOgCk8oKXKhRLPI2j49Ftap9EOwBXM346/+yTvgMUZZgtmd2rQEdDtjeyiYqTJWk6yfwxGYz ha73cl5yTUb231vQ3 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/LDlufX9zvYtfeJYDHO5uH_EPpKA Cc: mpls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:03:38 -0000 The intention of LIME (who knows whether it is achievable?) is to produce a single YANG module that provides a generic way in to OAM across all IETF technologies. There are certainly a number of core concepts, configurable items, and reportable things that can be stated in a technology independent way. LIME has as a deliverable a set of applicability statements showing how the generic module is applied to different IETF OAM technologies. I should not be surprised if technology-specific modules are also required. I think LIME hopes that these will build on the generic module and not reinvent. I assume this will be through augmentation. And I assume the work will be done by the WGs that own the technologies (where those WGs exist). I don't think I understand your tree. Why would "RSVP-TE OAM" live under rsvp-te under mpls? The OAM is going to be standard mpls oam, but the concepts (MIPs, MEPs, on/off, failure found, etc.) are general. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Gregory Mirsky > Sent: 26 October 2014 18:51 > To: Loa Andersson; lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question > > Hi Loa, > I think that your question is not simple at all and it would be a great to discuss > how Generic OAM proposal is related to MPLS OAM at the meeting. > Personally, I think that there's no separate LDP, RSVP-TE or EVPN, Segment > Routing (as far as transport layer for the latter two) OAMs but one MPLS OAM > with extensions/special cases for IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP and Segment Routing > networks. > > Regards, > Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Loa Andersson > Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:14 AM > To: lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question > > Folks, > > I have what I hope is a simple question, and that it will only reveal that I'm not up > to speed on yang. > > I trying to figure out the relationship between the generic yang models in e.g. > draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model and the specific models we do for different > variants of e.g. mpls oam. > > I guess we have a structure more or less like this > > mpls > | > |- ldp > | |-ldp oam > | > |- rsvp-te > | | > | |- rsvp-te oam > | > |- lsp ping > | | > | |- lsp ping oam > | > |- etc > > > Where does the generic work fit in? > > /Loa > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > _______________________________________________ > Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > > _______________________________________________ > Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord From nobody Sun Oct 26 17:15:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6801A1AE6; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:15:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 yFwHClBePifY; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x231.google.com (mail-ig0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D9B11A1B2A; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f177.google.com with SMTP id h18so2125340igc.4 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:15:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=y5Ao9ZHaFWzDWnvs9LsKY/ZsPZ1molypQLxvSv67vtk=; b=hUY/VUHbuuiQWxsaDXmQKjt/kAU+SO+ufJRtkRTMGpROYuR4lSjAq02h1n0CYmwkCB 3DgRirHVjP5OBGiIVDJBIIqtxmDC5S2KKrLNaeCfLH5q/oCt2bw7EWYYatNXEI9/amCL 50uXhWVbxXW+gMumj3iw32AWlXYtODKZmV0iqy936yfBvY5+/QnJAyiQicDor4TNvSaY pAEGMAQzA7Ii4NpLpTSB9XlBqW0X2OgZsMaCUZbVbvX50WcCVFsdw0H8Afz4l4tmR1/B W6Vb+OIAAvg294bA9S1ad1YKo8ozAgTngUqd4vmOvVAsagSwKewFiQu5I5CP+I/gI/e6 mUYA== X-Received: by 10.50.114.97 with SMTP id jf1mr18185293igb.29.1414368944657; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([216.254.166.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ro6sm4224439igb.3.2014.10.26.17.15.43 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <544D8EAA.9090909@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:15:38 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Gregory Mirsky' , 'Loa Andersson' , lime@ietf.org, Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org References: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B86EE25@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <000601cff179$707a8c10$516fa430$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <000601cff179$707a8c10$516fa430$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/hcKDios1vxaBZJs7UBfKqmfCpGE Cc: mpls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lime] [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:15:48 -0000 This might be a good time to remind/alert people about the liaison statement received from the MEF regarding draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model. It can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2014-07-31-mef-netmod-liaison-to-ietf-on-yang-service-oam-models-attachment-1.pdf Tom Taylor On 26/10/2014 8:03 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > The intention of LIME (who knows whether it is achievable?) is to produce a > single YANG module that provides a generic way in to OAM across all IETF > technologies. > > There are certainly a number of core concepts, configurable items, and > reportable things that can be stated in a technology independent way. > > LIME has as a deliverable a set of applicability statements showing how the > generic module is applied to different IETF OAM technologies. > > I should not be surprised if technology-specific modules are also required. I > think LIME hopes that these will build on the generic module and not reinvent. I > assume this will be through augmentation. And I assume the work will be done by > the WGs that own the technologies (where those WGs exist). > > I don't think I understand your tree. Why would "RSVP-TE OAM" live under rsvp-te > under mpls? The OAM is going to be standard mpls oam, but the concepts (MIPs, > MEPs, on/off, failure found, etc.) are general. > > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Gregory Mirsky >> Sent: 26 October 2014 18:51 >> To: Loa Andersson; lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org >> Cc: mpls@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question >> >> Hi Loa, >> I think that your question is not simple at all and it would be a great to > discuss >> how Generic OAM proposal is related to MPLS OAM at the meeting. >> Personally, I think that there's no separate LDP, RSVP-TE or EVPN, Segment >> Routing (as far as transport layer for the latter two) OAMs but one MPLS OAM >> with extensions/special cases for IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP and Segment Routing >> networks. >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Loa Andersson >> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:14 AM >> To: lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org >> Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question >> >> Folks, >> >> I have what I hope is a simple question, and that it will only reveal that I'm > not up >> to speed on yang. >> >> I trying to figure out the relationship between the generic yang models in > e.g. >> draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model and the specific models we do for different >> variants of e.g. mpls oam. >> >> I guess we have a structure more or less like this >> >> mpls >> | >> |- ldp >> | |-ldp oam >> | >> |- rsvp-te >> | | >> | |- rsvp-te oam >> | >> |- lsp ping >> | | >> | |- lsp ping oam >> | >> |- etc >> >> >> Where does the generic work fit in? >> >> /Loa >> -- >> >> >> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list >> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list >> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > > _______________________________________________ > Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > From nobody Sun Oct 26 17:34:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FD61A1B2A; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:34:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 8yIesRPyB_pV; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C7081A1AE6; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9R0YJUs023855; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:34:19 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9R0YI1r023839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:34:18 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Tom Taylor'" References: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B86EE25@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <000601cff179$707a8c10$516fa430$@olddog.co.uk> <544D8EAA.9090909@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <544D8EAA.9090909@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:34:15 -0000 Message-ID: <000e01cff17d$bd0d5f90$37281eb0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGuTtmLR0JtP8jl1thBqlYiJvncbQIIekC6Ajjl9XEBAQsSKpxcR6yg Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21056.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--30.210-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--30.210-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: TmlY9+XBoTm31G6CKdUG1cnUTf2MoOKYEtdrY/Wb3fMNht78/JfyBMKA qDfnmQ42htCDYfkeWUJo3hk6V6hjRT75vUIBy/bgU+OjsPhIWDhbUMPBWMyEThtDdc/8nLiysIz dcvB968pNYvDaO9t+nDYdkK1ORHHU9R7dwXny/bdhHpATwph+yOHQ21j8RtplCjPgYJbiyuAIZJ R7eWK/XCloEzX3fCKax+Qz1C8nOE6k0F4/j+0gRppWgCLYjjT9IpFOMUBYG+7HkH7uosEn7K0Ro mhWPJaQB153D9DJzyUNAALOfBOeCgmUwwEM0RbQ6/xAZojbl7c7ikpJrsu/6E/N5GQtssoCM+p+ NpswZmrPVbpsm8zN9R6i22jnAC+aCBmrdSPkjFwOrlBkQa9qFp20dShmm+V5feHPnu31iHAuaJN NszYALx05bc4Zz97z5pxeinsKVObGkynrj1kccqm4PbloS2C3QZXZg2I8JabnU40jhQv76qPFjJ EFr+olfeZdJ1XsorhYoPZAqTBHwi/tubwHkCSX+gD2vYtOFhgqtq5d3cxkNQP90fJP9eHt Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/Vvax5nE_NTSnTkPRFNCHARLaAZU Cc: Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org, lime@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, david.sinicrope@ericsson.com Subject: Re: [Lime] [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:34:25 -0000 [Adding Netmod, but removing MPLS] A good pointer, Tom, thanks. The liaison seems to request review and feedback, but I don't see a response from Netmod and it looks like the MEF Technical Committee is meeting today and in the next few days. I think that if LIME had existed at the time the liaison arrived, it is probable that it would also have been a recipient. We should certainly strive to work with MEF and build on existing work. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com] > Sent: 27 October 2014 00:16 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Gregory Mirsky'; 'Loa Andersson'; lime@ietf.org; Rtg- > yang-coord@ietf.org > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question > > This might be a good time to remind/alert people about the liaison > statement received from the MEF regarding > draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model. It can be found at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2014-07-31-mef- > netmod-liaison-to-ietf-on-yang-service-oam-models-attachment-1.pdf > > Tom Taylor > > On 26/10/2014 8:03 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > The intention of LIME (who knows whether it is achievable?) is to produce a > > single YANG module that provides a generic way in to OAM across all IETF > > technologies. > > > > There are certainly a number of core concepts, configurable items, and > > reportable things that can be stated in a technology independent way. > > > > LIME has as a deliverable a set of applicability statements showing how the > > generic module is applied to different IETF OAM technologies. > > > > I should not be surprised if technology-specific modules are also required. I > > think LIME hopes that these will build on the generic module and not reinvent. I > > assume this will be through augmentation. And I assume the work will be done > by > > the WGs that own the technologies (where those WGs exist). > > > > I don't think I understand your tree. Why would "RSVP-TE OAM" live under > rsvp-te > > under mpls? The OAM is going to be standard mpls oam, but the concepts > (MIPs, > > MEPs, on/off, failure found, etc.) are general. > > > > Adrian > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > >> Gregory Mirsky > >> Sent: 26 October 2014 18:51 > >> To: Loa Andersson; lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > >> Cc: mpls@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question > >> > >> Hi Loa, > >> I think that your question is not simple at all and it would be a great to > > discuss > >> how Generic OAM proposal is related to MPLS OAM at the meeting. > >> Personally, I think that there's no separate LDP, RSVP-TE or EVPN, Segment > >> Routing (as far as transport layer for the latter two) OAMs but one MPLS OAM > >> with extensions/special cases for IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP and Segment Routing > >> networks. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Greg > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > >> Loa Andersson > >> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:14 AM > >> To: lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > >> Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question > >> > >> Folks, > >> > >> I have what I hope is a simple question, and that it will only reveal that I'm > > not up > >> to speed on yang. > >> > >> I trying to figure out the relationship between the generic yang models in > > e.g. > >> draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model and the specific models we do for different > >> variants of e.g. mpls oam. > >> > >> I guess we have a structure more or less like this > >> > >> mpls > >> | > >> |- ldp > >> | |-ldp oam > >> | > >> |- rsvp-te > >> | | > >> | |- rsvp-te oam > >> | > >> |- lsp ping > >> | | > >> | |- lsp ping oam > >> | > >> |- etc > >> > >> > >> Where does the generic work fit in? > >> > >> /Loa > >> -- > >> > >> > >> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > >> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > >> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > >> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > >> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > > Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > > From nobody Sun Oct 26 18:03:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8281A1BA7 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:03:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.422 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 qOSGXA1P0awt for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:02:57 -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 770B71A1BA2 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BKY61629; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:02:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:02:54 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:02:49 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Ronald Bonica , "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Meeting at IETF 91 Thread-Index: Ac/vu8hHEFt+fX3ARcagRhubeqKryABxdxtA Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:02:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: 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: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/GFVBz0fTlOhLXWJQ9B4IZwRPmDk Subject: Re: [Lime] Meeting at IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:03:00 -0000 Um9uOg0KSSB2b2x1bnRlZXIgdG8gdGFrZSBtaW51dGVzLg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzIQ0KLVFpbg0KLS0t LS3Tyrz+1K28/i0tLS0tDQq3orz+yMs6IExpbWUgW21haWx0bzpsaW1lLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5v cmddILT6se0gUm9uYWxkIEJvbmljYQ0Kt6LLzcqxvOQ6IDIwMTTE6jEw1MIyNcjVIDI6NTQNCsrV vP7IyzogbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0K1vfM4jogW0xpbWVdIE1lZXRpbmcgYXQgSUVURiA5MQ0KDQpG b2xrcywNCg0KV291bGQgYW55b25lIGJlIHdpbGxpbmcgdG8gdGFrZSBtaW51dGUgZm9yIHRoZSBJ RVRGIDkxIGxpbWUgbWVldGluZz8gU2VydmUgYXMgSmFiYmVyIHNjcmliZT8NCg0KVm9sdW50ZWVy cyB3aWxsIGJlIHJld2FyZGVkIGdlbmVyb3VzbHkhDQoNClJvbiBCb25pY2ENCg0KX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkxpbWUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0 DQpMaW1lQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2xp bWUNCg== From nobody Sun Oct 26 18:52:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAAE41A1BD9; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:52:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.422 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 zy8zkpxrTlkw; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:52:33 -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 6932E1A1BEE; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BKY64115; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:52:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:52:29 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:52:22 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Loa Andersson , "lime@ietf.org" , "Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Lime] hopefully a simple question Thread-Index: AQHP8QWoZTMWKABt7Eae+8O2wKz9yZxDJedg Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:52:21 +0000 Message-ID: References: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> 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: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/ohdc0EZ3Lubmpd_e3ajLvksfMeE Subject: Re: [Lime] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:52:36 -0000 SXQgaXMgc3RyYW5nZSB0byBzdWJzdW1lIExEUCBPQU0gYW5kIFJTVlAtdGUgT0FNIHVuZGVyIE1Q TFMgT0FNLg0KTERQIE9BTSBhbmQgUlNWUC10ZSBPQU0gYXJlIG5vdCBkYXRhIHBsYW5lIE9BTSB0 b29scywgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gdGhleSBhcmUgY29udHJvbCBwbGFuZSBtYWludGVuYW5jZSB0b29s cy4NCldoZW4gd2UgdGFsayBhYm91dCBNUExTIE9BTSAsIGl0IGlzIHVzdWFsbHkgcmVmZXJyZWQg dG8gZGF0YSBwbGFuZSB0b29scywgaS5lLiwgTFNQIFBpbmcgT0FNLg0KUkZDNzI3NiBwcm92aWRl cyBhIGdvb2Qgc3VtbWFyaXphdGlvbiBmb3IgdmFyaW91cyBPQU0gdG9vbHMuDQoNClNlY29uZGx5 LCBJIHRoaW5rIGlmIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBzb21lIHN1Yi10ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgdGhhdCBhcmUgdW5k ZXIgTVBMUyBPQU0sIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgc3ViLXR5cGVzIGNhbiBhdWdtZW50DQp0aGUgYmFzZSBt b2RlbCB3aXRoIGJvdGggdGVjaG5vbG9neSB0eXBlIHNwZWNpZmljcyBhbmQgdGVjaG5vbG9neSBz dWItdHlwZSBzcGVjaWZpY3MsDQppLmUuLCB1c2UgaWRlbnRpdHkgdGVjaG5vbG9neS10eXBlcyBk ZWZpbmVkIGluIHRoZSBiYXNlIG1vZGVsIGFuZCB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IHN1YiB0eXBlIGRlZmluZWQg aW4gdGhlIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgc3BlY2lmaWMgbW9kZWwNCnRvIGlkZW50aWZ5IHNwZWNpZmljIHN1 Yi0gdGVjaG5vbG9neSB0eXBlIHdpdGhpbiBzcGVjaWZpYyB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IHR5cGUuDQoNClJl Z2FyZHMhDQotUWluDQotLS0tLdPKvP7Urbz+LS0tLS0NCreivP7IyzogTGltZSBbbWFpbHRvOmxp bWUtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBMb2EgQW5kZXJzc29uDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxNMTq MTDUwjI2yNUgMTg6MTQNCsrVvP7IyzogbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZzsgUnRnLXlhbmctY29vcmRAaWV0 Zi5vcmcNCtb3zOI6IFtMaW1lXSBob3BlZnVsbHkgYSBzaW1wbGUgcXVlc3Rpb24NCg0KRm9sa3Ms DQoNCkkgaGF2ZSB3aGF0IEkgaG9wZSBpcyBhIHNpbXBsZSBxdWVzdGlvbiwgYW5kIHRoYXQgaXQg d2lsbCBvbmx5IHJldmVhbCB0aGF0IEknbSBub3QgdXAgdG8gc3BlZWQgb24geWFuZy4NCg0KSSB0 cnlpbmcgdG8gZmlndXJlIG91dCB0aGUgcmVsYXRpb25zaGlwIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIGdlbmVyaWMg eWFuZyBtb2RlbHMgaW4gZS5nLiBkcmFmdC10aXNzYS1saW1lLXlhbmctb2FtLW1vZGVsIGFuZCB0 aGUgc3BlY2lmaWMgbW9kZWxzIHdlIGRvIGZvciBkaWZmZXJlbnQgdmFyaWFudHMgb2YgZS5nLiBt cGxzIG9hbS4NCg0KSSBndWVzcyB3ZSBoYXZlIGEgc3RydWN0dXJlIG1vcmUgb3IgbGVzcyBsaWtl IHRoaXMNCg0KbXBscw0KICB8DQogIHwtIGxkcA0KICB8ICAgfC1sZHAgb2FtDQogIHwNCiAgfC0g cnN2cC10ZQ0KICB8ICAgfA0KICB8ICAgfC0gcnN2cC10ZSBvYW0NCiAgfA0KICB8LSBsc3AgcGlu Zw0KICB8ICAgfA0KICB8ICAgfC0gbHNwIHBpbmcgb2FtDQogIHwNCiAgfC0gZXRjDQoNCg0KV2hl cmUgZG9lcyB0aGUgZ2VuZXJpYyB3b3JrIGZpdCBpbj8NCg0KL0xvYQ0KLS0gDQoNCg0KTG9hIEFu ZGVyc3NvbiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGVtYWlsOiBsb2FAbWFpbDAxLmh1YXdlaS5j b20NClNlbmlvciBNUExTIEV4cGVydCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgbG9hQHBpLm51 DQpIdWF3ZWkgVGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIChjb25zdWx0YW50KSAgICAgcGhvbmU6ICs0NiA3MzkgODEg MjEgNjQNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18N CkxpbWUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpMaW1lQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9t YWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2xpbWUNCg== From nobody Sun Oct 26 18:58:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A201A1BCB for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:58:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.692 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.692 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 09maNQPE1Y0d for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp [192.51.44.36]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 593061A1BC5 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kw-mxauth.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (unknown [10.0.237.134]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343023EE0BB; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:58:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by kw-mxauth.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47378AC005F; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:58:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from dm.kawasaki.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (dm.kawasaki.flab.fujitsu.co.jp [10.25.192.105]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8B81DB8038; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:58:19 +0900 (JST) X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v2.2.3 X-SHieldMailCheckerPolicyVersion: FJ-ISEC-20140219 Message-ID: <544DA69E.3040708@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:57:50 +0900 From: Yuji Tochio User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ronald Bonica , "lime@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/HOH-CSBkxmVNldIWufAIDufThTI Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:58:23 -0000 Hi Rom I am sorry for late reply... We (Authors of draft-txh..) would like to ask for 5 min to present the gap analysis draft. And the version 01 will be posted today. Thanks, Yuji and Authors of draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis (2014/10/21 3:28), Ronald Bonica wrote: > Folks, > > It's time to start planning the agenda for IETF 91. > > Would the authors of the following drafts please send email indicated whether you intend to present and how much time you need: > > - draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps > - draft-king-opsawg-lime-multi-layer-oam-use-case-00 > - draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-00 > > Also, if anyone else needs agenda time, please reply to this message. > > Ron Bonica > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime From nobody Sun Oct 26 19:13:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3099D1A3B9E; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:13:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.422 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 T_jDggbrAU3u; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:13:44 -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 947C81A6EDB; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BKY65246; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:13:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:13:37 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:13:31 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "'Tom Taylor'" Thread-Topic: [Lime] [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question Thread-Index: AQHP8Xst52xKZrqdBUqVuDTnIZNWM5xCkmaAgACeQDA= Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:13:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B86EE25@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <000601cff179$707a8c10$516fa430$@olddog.co.uk> <544D8EAA.9090909@gmail.com> <000e01cff17d$bd0d5f90$37281eb0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <000e01cff17d$bd0d5f90$37281eb0$@olddog.co.uk> 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: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/YzUJqzCEc2bRZiO_H5kHbaGpIUA Cc: "Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" , "lime@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org" , "david.sinicrope@ericsson.com" Subject: Re: [Lime] [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:13:47 -0000 QW5vdGhlciBsaWFpc29uIHN0YXRlbWVudCBzZW50IHRvIElFVEYgT1BTYXJlYSBvbiBBcHJpbCAy MDE0IGJlZm9yZSBMSU1FIGlzIGZvcm1lZA0KaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9k b2N1bWVudHMvTElBSVNPTi9saWFpc29uLTIwMTQtMDQtMjMtaXR1LXQtc2ctMTUtb3BzLWxzLW9u LW5ldy13b3JrLWl0ZW0tb24tZ2VuZXJpYy1pbmZvcm1hdGlvbi1tb2RlbC1mb3ItbWFuYWdlbWVu dC1vZi10cmFuc3BvcnQtbmUtYXR0YWNobWVudC0xLnBkZg0KSXQgaXMgcmVsYXRlZCB0byBJVFUt VCBHLmdpbTogZ2VuZXJpYyBwcm90b2NvbC1uZXV0cmFsIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIG1vZGVsIGZvciB0 cmFuc3BvcnQgbmV0d29yayBtYW5hZ2VtZW50Lg0KQWx0aG91Z2ggaXQgaXMgbm90IGRpcmVjdGx5 IHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gWUFORyBkYXRhIG1vZGVsIHdvcmsgd2UgYXJlIGZvY3VzaW5nIG9uLCBJIHRo aW5rIHdlIGFsc28gbmVlZCB0byBjb25zaWRlciB0aGlzIGV4aXN0aW5nIHdvcmsuDQoNClJlZ2Fy ZHMhDQotUWluDQotLS0tLdPKvP7Urbz+LS0tLS0NCreivP7IyzogTGltZSBbbWFpbHRvOmxpbWUt Ym91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBBZHJpYW4gRmFycmVsDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxNMTqMTDU wjI3yNUgODozNA0KytW8/sjLOiAnVG9tIFRheWxvcicNCrOty806IFJ0Zy15YW5nLWNvb3JkQGll dGYub3JnOyBsaW1lQGlldGYub3JnOyBuZXRtb2RAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IGRhdmlkLnNpbmljcm9wZUBl cmljc3Nvbi5jb20NCtb3zOI6IFJlOiBbTGltZV0gW1J0Zy15YW5nLWNvb3JkXSBob3BlZnVsbHkg YSBzaW1wbGUgcXVlc3Rpb24NCg0KW0FkZGluZyBOZXRtb2QsIGJ1dCByZW1vdmluZyBNUExTXQ0K DQpBIGdvb2QgcG9pbnRlciwgVG9tLCB0aGFua3MuDQoNClRoZSBsaWFpc29uIHNlZW1zIHRvIHJl cXVlc3QgcmV2aWV3IGFuZCBmZWVkYmFjaywgYnV0IEkgZG9uJ3Qgc2VlIGEgcmVzcG9uc2UgZnJv bSBOZXRtb2QgYW5kIGl0IGxvb2tzIGxpa2UgdGhlIE1FRiBUZWNobmljYWwgQ29tbWl0dGVlIGlz IG1lZXRpbmcgdG9kYXkgYW5kIGluIHRoZSBuZXh0IGZldyBkYXlzLiANCg0KSSB0aGluayB0aGF0 IGlmIExJTUUgaGFkIGV4aXN0ZWQgYXQgdGhlIHRpbWUgdGhlIGxpYWlzb24gYXJyaXZlZCwgaXQg aXMgcHJvYmFibGUgdGhhdCBpdCB3b3VsZCBhbHNvIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBhIHJlY2lwaWVudC4gDQoN CldlIHNob3VsZCBjZXJ0YWlubHkgc3RyaXZlIHRvIHdvcmsgd2l0aCBNRUYgYW5kIGJ1aWxkIG9u IGV4aXN0aW5nIHdvcmsuDQoNCkFkcmlhbg0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0t DQo+IEZyb206IFRvbSBUYXlsb3IgW21haWx0bzp0b20udGF5bG9yLnN0ZHNAZ21haWwuY29tXQ0K PiBTZW50OiAyNyBPY3RvYmVyIDIwMTQgMDA6MTYNCj4gVG86IGFkcmlhbkBvbGRkb2cuY28udWs7 ICdHcmVnb3J5IE1pcnNreSc7ICdMb2EgQW5kZXJzc29uJzsgDQo+IGxpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmc7DQpS dGctDQo+IHlhbmctY29vcmRAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gQ2M6IG1wbHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVj dDogUmU6IFtSdGcteWFuZy1jb29yZF0gaG9wZWZ1bGx5IGEgc2ltcGxlIHF1ZXN0aW9uDQo+IA0K PiBUaGlzIG1pZ2h0IGJlIGEgZ29vZCB0aW1lIHRvIHJlbWluZC9hbGVydCBwZW9wbGUgYWJvdXQg dGhlIGxpYWlzb24gDQo+IHN0YXRlbWVudCByZWNlaXZlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBNRUYgcmVnYXJkaW5n IA0KPiBkcmFmdC10aXNzYS1saW1lLXlhbmctb2FtLW1vZGVsLiAgSXQgY2FuIGJlIGZvdW5kIGF0 DQo+IA0KPiBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvY3VtZW50cy9MSUFJU09OL2xp YWlzb24tMjAxNC0wNy0zMS1tZWYtDQo+IG5ldG1vZC1saWFpc29uLXRvLWlldGYtb24teWFuZy1z ZXJ2aWNlLW9hbS1tb2RlbHMtYXR0YWNobWVudC0xLnBkZg0KPiANCj4gICBUb20gVGF5bG9yDQo+ IA0KPiBPbiAyNi8xMC8yMDE0IDg6MDMgUE0sIEFkcmlhbiBGYXJyZWwgd3JvdGU6DQo+ID4gVGhl IGludGVudGlvbiBvZiBMSU1FICh3aG8ga25vd3Mgd2hldGhlciBpdCBpcyBhY2hpZXZhYmxlPykg aXMgdG8gDQo+ID4gcHJvZHVjZSBhIHNpbmdsZSBZQU5HIG1vZHVsZSB0aGF0IHByb3ZpZGVzIGEg Z2VuZXJpYyB3YXkgaW4gdG8gT0FNIA0KPiA+IGFjcm9zcyBhbGwgSUVURiB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMu DQo+ID4NCj4gPiBUaGVyZSBhcmUgY2VydGFpbmx5IGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGNvcmUgY29uY2VwdHMs IGNvbmZpZ3VyYWJsZSBpdGVtcywgDQo+ID4gYW5kIHJlcG9ydGFibGUgdGhpbmdzIHRoYXQgY2Fu IGJlIHN0YXRlZCBpbiBhIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgaW5kZXBlbmRlbnQgd2F5Lg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gTElN RSBoYXMgYXMgYSBkZWxpdmVyYWJsZSBhIHNldCBvZiBhcHBsaWNhYmlsaXR5IHN0YXRlbWVudHMg c2hvd2luZyANCj4gPiBob3cgdGhlIGdlbmVyaWMgbW9kdWxlIGlzIGFwcGxpZWQgdG8gZGlmZmVy ZW50IElFVEYgT0FNIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcy4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IEkgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSBzdXJw cmlzZWQgaWYgdGVjaG5vbG9neS1zcGVjaWZpYyBtb2R1bGVzIGFyZSBhbHNvIHJlcXVpcmVkLg0K SQ0KPiA+IHRoaW5rIExJTUUgaG9wZXMgdGhhdCB0aGVzZSB3aWxsIGJ1aWxkIG9uIHRoZSBnZW5l cmljIG1vZHVsZSBhbmQgbm90DQpyZWludmVudC4gSQ0KPiA+IGFzc3VtZSB0aGlzIHdpbGwgYmUg dGhyb3VnaCBhdWdtZW50YXRpb24uIEFuZCBJIGFzc3VtZSB0aGUgd29yayB3aWxsIA0KPiA+IGJl IGRvbmUNCj4gYnkNCj4gPiB0aGUgV0dzIHRoYXQgb3duIHRoZSB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgKHdoZXJl IHRob3NlIFdHcyBleGlzdCkuDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBJIGRvbid0IHRoaW5rIEkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCB5 b3VyIHRyZWUuIFdoeSB3b3VsZCAiUlNWUC1URSBPQU0iIGxpdmUgDQo+ID4gdW5kZXINCj4gcnN2 cC10ZQ0KPiA+IHVuZGVyIG1wbHM/IFRoZSBPQU0gaXMgZ29pbmcgdG8gYmUgc3RhbmRhcmQgbXBs cyBvYW0sIGJ1dCB0aGUgDQo+ID4gY29uY2VwdHMNCj4gKE1JUHMsDQo+ID4gTUVQcywgb24vb2Zm LCBmYWlsdXJlIGZvdW5kLCBldGMuKSBhcmUgZ2VuZXJhbC4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IEFkcmlhbg0KPiA+ DQo+ID4+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+ID4+IEZyb206IFJ0Zy15YW5nLWNv b3JkIFttYWlsdG86cnRnLXlhbmctY29vcmQtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gDQo+ID4+IEJl aGFsZiBPZiBHcmVnb3J5IE1pcnNreQ0KPiA+PiBTZW50OiAyNiBPY3RvYmVyIDIwMTQgMTg6NTEN Cj4gPj4gVG86IExvYSBBbmRlcnNzb247IGxpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IFJ0Zy15YW5nLWNvb3JkQGll dGYub3JnDQo+ID4+IENjOiBtcGxzQGlldGYub3JnDQo+ID4+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUnRnLXlh bmctY29vcmRdIGhvcGVmdWxseSBhIHNpbXBsZSBxdWVzdGlvbg0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiBIaSBMb2Es DQo+ID4+IEkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCB5b3VyIHF1ZXN0aW9uIGlzIG5vdCBzaW1wbGUgYXQgYWxsIGFu ZCBpdCB3b3VsZCBiZSBhIA0KPiA+PiBncmVhdCB0bw0KPiA+IGRpc2N1c3MNCj4gPj4gaG93IEdl bmVyaWMgT0FNIHByb3Bvc2FsIGlzIHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gTVBMUyBPQU0gYXQgdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcu DQo+ID4+IFBlcnNvbmFsbHksIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSdzIG5vIHNlcGFyYXRlIExEUCwg UlNWUC1URSBvciBFVlBOLCANCj4gPj4gU2VnbWVudCBSb3V0aW5nIChhcyBmYXIgYXMgdHJhbnNw b3J0IGxheWVyIGZvciB0aGUgbGF0dGVyIHR3bykgT0FNcyANCj4gPj4gYnV0IG9uZSBNUExTDQpP QU0NCj4gPj4gd2l0aCBleHRlbnNpb25zL3NwZWNpYWwgY2FzZXMgZm9yIElQL01QTFMsIE1QTFMt VFAgYW5kIFNlZ21lbnQgDQo+ID4+IFJvdXRpbmcgbmV0d29ya3MuDQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+IAlSZWdh cmRzLA0KPiA+PiAJCUdyZWcNCj4gPj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gPj4g RnJvbTogUnRnLXlhbmctY29vcmQgW21haWx0bzpydGcteWFuZy1jb29yZC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYu b3JnXSBPbiANCj4gPj4gQmVoYWxmIE9mIExvYSBBbmRlcnNzb24NCj4gPj4gU2VudDogU3VuZGF5 LCBPY3RvYmVyIDI2LCAyMDE0IDM6MTQgQU0NCj4gPj4gVG86IGxpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IFJ0Zy15 YW5nLWNvb3JkQGlldGYub3JnDQo+ID4+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFtSdGcteWFuZy1jb29yZF0gaG9wZWZ1 bGx5IGEgc2ltcGxlIHF1ZXN0aW9uDQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+IEZvbGtzLA0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiBJIGhh dmUgd2hhdCBJIGhvcGUgaXMgYSBzaW1wbGUgcXVlc3Rpb24sIGFuZCB0aGF0IGl0IHdpbGwgb25s eSANCj4gPj4gcmV2ZWFsIHRoYXQNCkknbQ0KPiA+IG5vdCB1cA0KPiA+PiB0byBzcGVlZCBvbiB5 YW5nLg0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiBJIHRyeWluZyB0byBmaWd1cmUgb3V0IHRoZSByZWxhdGlvbnNoaXAg YmV0d2VlbiB0aGUgZ2VuZXJpYyB5YW5nIA0KPiA+PiBtb2RlbHMgaW4NCj4gPiBlLmcuDQo+ID4+ IGRyYWZ0LXRpc3NhLWxpbWUteWFuZy1vYW0tbW9kZWwgYW5kIHRoZSBzcGVjaWZpYyBtb2RlbHMg d2UgZG8gZm9yIA0KPiA+PiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgdmFyaWFudHMgb2YgZS5nLiBtcGxzIG9hbS4NCj4g Pj4NCj4gPj4gSSBndWVzcyB3ZSBoYXZlIGEgc3RydWN0dXJlIG1vcmUgb3IgbGVzcyBsaWtlIHRo aXMNCj4gPj4NCj4gPj4gbXBscw0KPiA+PiAgICB8DQo+ID4+ICAgIHwtIGxkcA0KPiA+PiAgICB8 ICAgfC1sZHAgb2FtDQo+ID4+ICAgIHwNCj4gPj4gICAgfC0gcnN2cC10ZQ0KPiA+PiAgICB8ICAg fA0KPiA+PiAgICB8ICAgfC0gcnN2cC10ZSBvYW0NCj4gPj4gICAgfA0KPiA+PiAgICB8LSBsc3Ag cGluZw0KPiA+PiAgICB8ICAgfA0KPiA+PiAgICB8ICAgfC0gbHNwIHBpbmcgb2FtDQo+ID4+ICAg IHwNCj4gPj4gICAgfC0gZXRjDQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+IFdoZXJlIGRvZXMgdGhlIGdlbmVy aWMgd29yayBmaXQgaW4/DQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+IC9Mb2ENCj4gPj4gLS0NCj4gPj4NCj4gPj4NCj4g Pj4gTG9hIEFuZGVyc3NvbiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGVtYWlsOiBsb2FAbWFpbDAx Lmh1YXdlaS5jb20NCj4gPj4gU2VuaW9yIE1QTFMgRXhwZXJ0ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICBsb2FAcGkubnUNCj4gPj4gSHVhd2VpIFRlY2hub2xvZ2llcyAoY29uc3VsdGFudCkgICAg IHBob25lOiArNDYgNzM5IDgxIDIxIDY0DQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+ID4+IFJ0Zy15YW5nLWNvb3JkIG1haWxpbmcg bGlzdA0KPiA+PiBSdGcteWFuZy1jb29yZEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiA+PiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3J0Zy15YW5nLWNvb3JkDQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+IF9fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+ID4+IFJ0Zy15YW5nLWNv b3JkIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiA+PiBSdGcteWFuZy1jb29yZEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiA+PiBodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3J0Zy15YW5nLWNvb3JkDQo+ID4NCj4g PiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiA+IFJ0 Zy15YW5nLWNvb3JkIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiA+IFJ0Zy15YW5nLWNvb3JkQGlldGYub3JnDQo+ ID4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9ydGcteWFuZy1jb29yZA0K PiA+DQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpM aW1lIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KTGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFp bG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9saW1lDQo= From nobody Sun Oct 26 20:01:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E241A6F9C; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:00:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.122 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 omh626CCYTza; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5B701A1A7E; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:00:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5030; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414378851; x=1415588451; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+OOhY2yJCiK0KPdOB3j73w1YRQ71JnQzT7uSnMnjY3A=; b=HLSjIvATbSCodDKuG3mO32wPrc1lbdyKUddP+NienKe/JP1ZOSytdr8z zgKBGVtjTCjgTdsXRcTzPYA7026zdYmFU9bgFdJJJFZarbzENJfURhpQ2 Oar95SxihdAAYrNbqICodu2sPLOGQG5BAR2oMv/iiNz5e5SlWq28Dbu82 I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvcGAL+0TVStJA2D/2dsb2JhbABSAQmDDlRYBIMCyXAKh00CG3IWAX2EAgEBAQQBAQExNwMEEwICAgEGAg4DBAEBBQYdBQICGQwLFAkIAgQBEAIIiDkNl0KcWQiUGAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcEgSSOfgYBCgECHRYiBoJtOoEeAQSSB4RInUCDeEErgQ85gQMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,792,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="90477453" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 03:00:50 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9R30of6029257 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:00:50 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.8.180]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 22:00:49 -0500 From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" To: Qin Wu , Loa Andersson , "lime@ietf.org" , "Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Lime] hopefully a simple question Thread-Index: AQHP8QWrzrV1e78a/kqkqOGqT6cpUJxDgxGA//+6fuA= Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:00:48 +0000 Message-ID: References: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.91.179] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/UWFm9a1_qGxrKiFBC2kOuyjP9CM Subject: Re: [Lime] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:00:59 -0000 VGhhbmtzIFFpbiBmb3IgdGhlIHNwb3Qgb24gZGV0YWlsIHJlcGx5LCANCg0KTG9hIGV0LmFsIA0K DQpMZXQgbWUgYWRkIG9uIHRvIHdoYXQgUWluIHN0YXRlZC4gV2UgbmVlZCB0byBhcHByb2FjaCB0 aGlzIGluIHRvcCBkb3duIG1hbm5lci4gQXQgdGhlIHRvcCBvZiB0aGUgbGF5ZXIgaXMgdGhlIGJh c2UgWUFORyBtb2RlbCAoYWthIEdlbiBZQU5HKQ0KDQpXaGF0IGlzIHByZXNlbnRlZCBpbiBUaXNz YS15YW5nIGlzIHRoZSBmYXVsdCBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IG1vZGVsLCB0aGF0IGlzIGluZGVwZW5kZW50 IG9mIHRoZSB1bmRlcmx5aW5nIE9BTSBwcm90b2NvbHMuIEluIGRlc2lnbmluZyB0aGUgbW9kZWwg d2UgaGF2ZSB1c2VkIHBvd2VyIG9mIFlBTkcgc28gdGhhdCBldmVyeSBlbGVtZW50IGlzIGF1Z21l bnRhYmxlLiBFLmcuIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgZW51bXMgd2UgdXNlIGlkZW50aXlyZWZzLCBpbnN0ZWFk IG9mIHR5cGVkZWZzIHdoZXJlIGFwcGxpY2FibGUgd2UgdXNlIGNvbWJpbmF0aW9uIG9mIGNob2lj ZS9jYXNlIHN0YXRlbWVudC4gVGhlIGlkZWEgaXMgZXZlcnkgYnJhbmNoIGluIHRoZSBkYXRhIG1v ZGVsIGlzIGV4dGVuc2libGUuDQoNClNlY29uZCBsYXllciBpcyBob3cgdGhpcyBjYW4gYmUgZXh0 ZW5kZWQgdG8gb3RoZXIgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLiBFeC4gQXJlIA0KaHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXRpc3NhLXRyaWxsLXlhbmctb2FtICAgDQpodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmll dGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtdGlzc2EtbnZvMy15YW5nLW9hbS0wMC0wMA0KDQoNClRoZSBtb2Rl bCBwcm9wb3NlZCBpcyBlcXVhbGx5IGFwcGxpY2FibGUgdG8gUkZDIDQzNzkgIkRldGVjdGluZyBN dWx0aS1Qcm90b2NvbCBMYWJlbCBTd2l0Y2hlZCAoTVBMUykgRGF0YSBQbGFuZSBGYWlsdXJlcyIN Cg0KDQpZb3UgaGF2ZSByZWZlcnJlZCB0byBNUExTIExEUCBPQU0sIHJzdnAtdGUtb2FtIGFuZCBz byBvbi4gVGhlc2Ugc291bmQgbW9yZSBvZiBjb250cm9sIHBsYW5lIGFzcGVjdHMuIEFyZSB0aGVy ZSBhbnkgcHVibGljYXRpb25zIHRoYXQgcHJlc2VudCBNUExTIExEUCBPQU0sIHJzdnAtdGUgT0FN LCB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIHRha2UgYSBsb29rIGJlZm9yZSBjb21tZW50Lg0KDQpPdXIgb2JqZWN0 aXZlIGhlcmUgaW4gVGlzc2EteWFuZzsgaXMgdG8gY3JlYXRlIGEgWUFORyBtb2RlbCB0aGF0IHRo YXQgY292ZXJzIGV4aXN0aW5nIE9BTSwgYW5kIGRhdGEgbW9kZWwgdG8gYmUgZXh0ZW5zaWJsZSBm b3IgZnV0dXJlIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMuDQoNCk9uZSBvZiB0aGUga2V5IGNoYXJ0ZXIgZWxlbWVudHMg b2YgTElNRSBpcyB0byBjb21lIHVwIHdpdGggR3VpZGVsaW5lcyBmb3IgT0FNIGRlc2lnbmVycy4g IFRoaXMgaXMgdG8gZ3VpZGUgZnV0dXJlIE9BTSBkZXNpZ25lcnMgdG8gY29uc2lkZXIvY29tcGxp YW50IHdpdGggdGhlIHVtYnJlbGxhIFlBTkcgbW9kZWwuIA0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3Nh Z2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogTGltZSBbbWFpbHRvOmxpbWUtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVo YWxmIE9mIFFpbiBXdQ0KU2VudDogU3VuZGF5LCBPY3RvYmVyIDI2LCAyMDE0IDY6NTIgUE0NClRv OiBMb2EgQW5kZXJzc29uOyBsaW1lQGlldGYub3JnOyBSdGcteWFuZy1jb29yZEBpZXRmLm9yZw0K U3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtMaW1lXSBob3BlZnVsbHkgYSBzaW1wbGUgcXVlc3Rpb24NCg0KSXQgaXMg c3RyYW5nZSB0byBzdWJzdW1lIExEUCBPQU0gYW5kIFJTVlAtdGUgT0FNIHVuZGVyIE1QTFMgT0FN Lg0KTERQIE9BTSBhbmQgUlNWUC10ZSBPQU0gYXJlIG5vdCBkYXRhIHBsYW5lIE9BTSB0b29scywg cmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gdGhleSBhcmUgY29udHJvbCBwbGFuZSBtYWludGVuYW5jZSB0b29scy4NCldo ZW4gd2UgdGFsayBhYm91dCBNUExTIE9BTSAsIGl0IGlzIHVzdWFsbHkgcmVmZXJyZWQgdG8gZGF0 YSBwbGFuZSB0b29scywgaS5lLiwgTFNQIFBpbmcgT0FNLg0KUkZDNzI3NiBwcm92aWRlcyBhIGdv b2Qgc3VtbWFyaXphdGlvbiBmb3IgdmFyaW91cyBPQU0gdG9vbHMuDQoNClNlY29uZGx5LCBJIHRo aW5rIGlmIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBzb21lIHN1Yi10ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgdGhhdCBhcmUgdW5kZXIgTVBM UyBPQU0sIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgc3ViLXR5cGVzIGNhbiBhdWdtZW50IHRoZSBiYXNlIG1vZGVsIHdp dGggYm90aCB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IHR5cGUgc3BlY2lmaWNzIGFuZCB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IHN1Yi10eXBl IHNwZWNpZmljcywgaS5lLiwgdXNlIGlkZW50aXR5IHRlY2hub2xvZ3ktdHlwZXMgZGVmaW5lZCBp biB0aGUgYmFzZSBtb2RlbCBhbmQgdGVjaG5vbG9neSBzdWIgdHlwZSBkZWZpbmVkIGluIHRoZSB0 ZWNobm9sb2d5IHNwZWNpZmljIG1vZGVsIHRvIGlkZW50aWZ5IHNwZWNpZmljIHN1Yi0gdGVjaG5v bG9neSB0eXBlIHdpdGhpbiBzcGVjaWZpYyB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IHR5cGUuDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMhDQot UWluDQotLS0tLdPKvP7Urbz+LS0tLS0NCreivP7IyzogTGltZSBbbWFpbHRvOmxpbWUtYm91bmNl c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBMb2EgQW5kZXJzc29uDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxNMTqMTDUwjI2yNUg MTg6MTQNCsrVvP7IyzogbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZzsgUnRnLXlhbmctY29vcmRAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCtb3 zOI6IFtMaW1lXSBob3BlZnVsbHkgYSBzaW1wbGUgcXVlc3Rpb24NCg0KRm9sa3MsDQoNCkkgaGF2 ZSB3aGF0IEkgaG9wZSBpcyBhIHNpbXBsZSBxdWVzdGlvbiwgYW5kIHRoYXQgaXQgd2lsbCBvbmx5 IHJldmVhbCB0aGF0IEknbSBub3QgdXAgdG8gc3BlZWQgb24geWFuZy4NCg0KSSB0cnlpbmcgdG8g ZmlndXJlIG91dCB0aGUgcmVsYXRpb25zaGlwIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIGdlbmVyaWMgeWFuZyBtb2Rl bHMgaW4gZS5nLiBkcmFmdC10aXNzYS1saW1lLXlhbmctb2FtLW1vZGVsIGFuZCB0aGUgc3BlY2lm aWMgbW9kZWxzIHdlIGRvIGZvciBkaWZmZXJlbnQgdmFyaWFudHMgb2YgZS5nLiBtcGxzIG9hbS4N Cg0KSSBndWVzcyB3ZSBoYXZlIGEgc3RydWN0dXJlIG1vcmUgb3IgbGVzcyBsaWtlIHRoaXMNCg0K bXBscw0KICB8DQogIHwtIGxkcA0KICB8ICAgfC1sZHAgb2FtDQogIHwNCiAgfC0gcnN2cC10ZQ0K ICB8ICAgfA0KICB8ICAgfC0gcnN2cC10ZSBvYW0NCiAgfA0KICB8LSBsc3AgcGluZw0KICB8ICAg fA0KICB8ICAgfC0gbHNwIHBpbmcgb2FtDQogIHwNCiAgfC0gZXRjDQoNCg0KV2hlcmUgZG9lcyB0 aGUgZ2VuZXJpYyB3b3JrIGZpdCBpbj8NCg0KL0xvYQ0KLS0gDQoNCg0KTG9hIEFuZGVyc3NvbiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGVtYWlsOiBsb2FAbWFpbDAxLmh1YXdlaS5jb20NClNlbmlv ciBNUExTIEV4cGVydCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgbG9hQHBpLm51DQpIdWF3ZWkg VGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIChjb25zdWx0YW50KSAgICAgcGhvbmU6ICs0NiA3MzkgODEgMjEgNjQNCg0K X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkxpbWUgbWFp bGluZyBsaXN0DQpMaW1lQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xp c3RpbmZvL2xpbWUNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fDQpMaW1lIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KTGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9saW1lDQo= From nobody Sun Oct 26 20:41:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755BB1A6FBB; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:41:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.822 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 bN4KKTfC12Kn; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:41:35 -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 674CE1A6FA3; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BOB51895; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:41:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:41:31 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:41:24 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" , Loa Andersson , "lime@ietf.org" , "Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Lime] hopefully a simple question Thread-Index: AQHP8QWoZTMWKABt7Eae+8O2wKz9yZxDJedg//+WXACAAIxjsA== Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:41:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: 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: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/W3EOC1EViEH7OOLQGBi2DrxrkPE Subject: Re: [Lime] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:41:36 -0000 LS0tLS3Tyrz+1K28/i0tLS0tDQq3orz+yMs6IFRpc3NhIFNlbmV2aXJhdGhuZSAodHNlbmV2aXIp IFttYWlsdG86dHNlbmV2aXJAY2lzY28uY29tXSANCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOoxMNTCMjfI1SAx MTowMQ0KytW8/sjLOiBRaW4gV3U7IExvYSBBbmRlcnNzb247IGxpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IFJ0Zy15 YW5nLWNvb3JkQGlldGYub3JnDQrW98ziOiBSRTogW0xpbWVdIGhvcGVmdWxseSBhIHNpbXBsZSBx dWVzdGlvbg0KDQpUaGFua3MgUWluIGZvciB0aGUgc3BvdCBvbiBkZXRhaWwgcmVwbHksIA0KDQpM b2EgZXQuYWwgDQoNCkxldCBtZSBhZGQgb24gdG8gd2hhdCBRaW4gc3RhdGVkLiBXZSBuZWVkIHRv IGFwcHJvYWNoIHRoaXMgaW4gdG9wIGRvd24gbWFubmVyLiBBdCB0aGUgdG9wIG9mIHRoZSBsYXll ciBpcyB0aGUgYmFzZSBZQU5HIG1vZGVsIChha2EgR2VuIFlBTkcpDQoNCldoYXQgaXMgcHJlc2Vu dGVkIGluIFRpc3NhLXlhbmcgaXMgdGhlIGZhdWx0IG1hbmFnZW1lbnQgbW9kZWwsIHRoYXQgaXMg aW5kZXBlbmRlbnQgb2YgdGhlIHVuZGVybHlpbmcgT0FNIHByb3RvY29scy4gSW4gZGVzaWduaW5n IHRoZSBtb2RlbCB3ZSBoYXZlIHVzZWQgcG93ZXIgb2YgWUFORyBzbyB0aGF0IGV2ZXJ5IGVsZW1l bnQgaXMgYXVnbWVudGFibGUuIA0KDQpbUWluXTogSnVzdCB3YW50IHRvIHN0cmVzcyB0aGUgZWxl bWVudCBpcyByZWZlcnJlZCB0byBldmVyeSBlbGVtZW50IGluc2VydGVkIGluIHRoZSBtb2R1bGUg aGllcmFyY2h5IGRlZmluZWQgaW4gUkZDNjAyMCxub3QgZWxlbWVudCBvciBub2RlIGluIHRoZSB0 cmVlIG1lbnRpb25lZCBiZWxvdy4NClRoZSB0cmVlIG1lbnRpb25lZCBiZWxvdyBjb21wcmlzZXMg YSBsb3Qgb2Ygbm9kZXMgaW5jbHVkaW5nIHJvb3Qgbm9kZSwgYnJhbmNoIG5vZGUsIGxlYWYgbm9k ZS4gRWFjaCBub2RlIGluIHRoaXMgdHJlZSBpcyBkYXRhIG1vZGVsLCBpcnJlc3BlY3RpdmUgb2Yg d2hldGhlciBpdCBpcw0KdGVjaG5vbG9neSBzcGVjaWZpYyBhbmQgdGVjaG5vbG9neSBpbmRlcGVu ZGVudC4NCg0KRS5nLiBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIGVudW1zIHdlIHVzZSBpZGVudGl5cmVmcywgaW5zdGVh ZCBvZiB0eXBlZGVmcyB3aGVyZSBhcHBsaWNhYmxlIHdlIHVzZSBjb21iaW5hdGlvbiBvZiBjaG9p Y2UvY2FzZSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQuIA0KDQpUaGUgaWRlYSBpcyBldmVyeSBicmFuY2ggaW4gdGhlIGRh dGEgbW9kZWwgaXMgZXh0ZW5zaWJsZS4NCg0KW1Fpbl06IEV4YWN0bHksIGluIGEgdHJlZSB3aXRo IHJvb3Qgbm9kZSwgYnJhbmNoIG5vZGVzIGFuZCBsZWFmIG5vZGVzLCBhbGwgdGhlIGJyYW5jaCBu b2RlcyBzaG91bGQgb25seSBoYXZlIG9uZSByb290IG5vZGUsIGlmIG9uZSBub2RlIGluIHRoZSB0 cmVlIGlzIGV4dGVuc2libGUsIHRoaXMgbm9kZSBNVVNUIGJlIGEgcm9vdCBub2RlIG9yIGEgYnJh bmNoIG5vZGUuIElmIHRoZSBvbmUgbm9kZSBpcyBub3QgZXh0ZW5zaWJsZSwgdGhpcyBub2RlIE1V U1QgYmUgYSBsZWFmIG5vZGUuDQpUaGVyZWZvcmUgdGVjaG5vbG9neSBzcGVjaWZpYyBkYXRhIG1v ZGVsIGNhbiBhbHNvIGJlIGV4dGVuc2libGUgYXMgbG9uZyBhcyBpdCBpcyBicmFuY2ggbm9kZSBp biB0aGUgdHJlZS4NCg== From nobody Sun Oct 26 21:13:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B421A1A93; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 21:13:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 jfZTNRK7Rh2e; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 21:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EEB61A038C; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 21:13:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5933; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414383197; x=1415592797; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xo6D1SC2L0WcejSVSiDVjnyXs7pxhYcZ6YVEJn1I1wQ=; b=PHpsdbUQppFQ7uhLC4F71YsqvkJU1bpZCm2JT+jPnuSXkNg1qmWpDO0x Ge/ybmbXi+HRp+8joz1o/5fdokrk74TJTWbsqL9fWf+DmYRZSpwcdkYbV 4h0eBKPadboqdyr7AytlKlAWwI1iFzJ9QhVoOw31xaW0V4W6KLABwk7RS A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAGbFTVStJA2F/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UWATMeAqGeVQCgQ0WAX2EAgEBAQMBAQEBNzEDBAcMAgICAQgRBAEBAQoUCQcbBgYLFAkIAgQBDQUIiCQDCQkNwXYNhjgBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBASOSoFYEQEfMQcGgyeBHgWPaYIehEiFAYNCjiCCXYQAg3hsAYEOOYEDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,792,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="90526441" Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 04:13:16 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9R4DF5Y006827 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:13:15 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.8.180]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 23:13:15 -0500 From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "'Tom Taylor'" Thread-Topic: [Lime] [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question Thread-Index: AQHP8XszPy1WMZvrkEeOuB7qmsPVxpxDbFOA///nrxA= Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:13:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B86EE25@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <000601cff179$707a8c10$516fa430$@olddog.co.uk> <544D8EAA.9090909@gmail.com> <000e01cff17d$bd0d5f90$37281eb0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <000e01cff17d$bd0d5f90$37281eb0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.91.179] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/n4HaVqA7z3cNGADQ-DYvzru1nzQ Cc: "Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" , "lime@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org" , "david.sinicrope@ericsson.com" Subject: Re: [Lime] [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:13:19 -0000 Thanks Adrian. It is good to see MEF is interested, both MEF and what is presented are us= ing the same root model. However, what is presented in Tissa-yang differs in, 1. It is not tied to Ethernet 2. All of the YANG structures have been revised to be augmentable So, two YANG models are no longer identical, except they share the same roo= t model. When doing TRILL OAM we did a Liaison with IEEE 8021 committee and it was e= xtremely productive and I am sure it will be like that with Liaison with t= he MEF. -----Original Message----- From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:34 PM To: 'Tom Taylor' Cc: Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org; lime@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org; david.sinicrop= e@ericsson.com Subject: Re: [Lime] [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question [Adding Netmod, but removing MPLS] A good pointer, Tom, thanks. The liaison seems to request review and feedback, but I don't see a respons= e from Netmod and it looks like the MEF Technical Committee is meeting toda= y and in the next few days.=20 I think that if LIME had existed at the time the liaison arrived, it is pro= bable that it would also have been a recipient.=20 We should certainly strive to work with MEF and build on existing work. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com] > Sent: 27 October 2014 00:16 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Gregory Mirsky'; 'Loa Andersson';=20 > lime@ietf.org; Rtg- > yang-coord@ietf.org > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question >=20 > This might be a good time to remind/alert people about the liaison=20 > statement received from the MEF regarding=20 > draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model. It can be found at >=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2014-07-31-mef- > netmod-liaison-to-ietf-on-yang-service-oam-models-attachment-1.pdf >=20 > Tom Taylor >=20 > On 26/10/2014 8:03 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > The intention of LIME (who knows whether it is achievable?) is to=20 > > produce a single YANG module that provides a generic way in to OAM=20 > > across all IETF technologies. > > > > There are certainly a number of core concepts, configurable items,=20 > > and reportable things that can be stated in a technology independent wa= y. > > > > LIME has as a deliverable a set of applicability statements showing=20 > > how the generic module is applied to different IETF OAM technologies. > > > > I should not be surprised if technology-specific modules are also requi= red. I > > think LIME hopes that these will build on the generic module and not reinvent. I > > assume this will be through augmentation. And I assume the work will=20 > > be done > by > > the WGs that own the technologies (where those WGs exist). > > > > I don't think I understand your tree. Why would "RSVP-TE OAM" live=20 > > under > rsvp-te > > under mpls? The OAM is going to be standard mpls oam, but the=20 > > concepts > (MIPs, > > MEPs, on/off, failure found, etc.) are general. > > > > Adrian > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > >> Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky > >> Sent: 26 October 2014 18:51 > >> To: Loa Andersson; lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > >> Cc: mpls@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question > >> > >> Hi Loa, > >> I think that your question is not simple at all and it would be a=20 > >> great to > > discuss > >> how Generic OAM proposal is related to MPLS OAM at the meeting. > >> Personally, I think that there's no separate LDP, RSVP-TE or EVPN,=20 > >> Segment Routing (as far as transport layer for the latter two) OAMs=20 > >> but one MPLS OAM > >> with extensions/special cases for IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP and Segment=20 > >> Routing networks. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Greg > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > >> Behalf Of Loa Andersson > >> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:14 AM > >> To: lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > >> Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question > >> > >> Folks, > >> > >> I have what I hope is a simple question, and that it will only=20 > >> reveal that I'm > > not up > >> to speed on yang. > >> > >> I trying to figure out the relationship between the generic yang=20 > >> models in > > e.g. > >> draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model and the specific models we do for=20 > >> different variants of e.g. mpls oam. > >> > >> I guess we have a structure more or less like this > >> > >> mpls > >> | > >> |- ldp > >> | |-ldp oam > >> | > >> |- rsvp-te > >> | | > >> | |- rsvp-te oam > >> | > >> |- lsp ping > >> | | > >> | |- lsp ping oam > >> | > >> |- etc > >> > >> > >> Where does the generic work fit in? > >> > >> /Loa > >> -- > >> > >> > >> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > >> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > >> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > >> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > >> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > > Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > > _______________________________________________ Lime mailing list Lime@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime From nobody Mon Oct 27 04:45:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52311A90D2 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:45:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 ss8rMmRLArEl for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:45:05 -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 E5E251A90DA for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BKZ15320; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:45:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.36) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:45:02 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.123]) by SZXEMA404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:44:57 +0800 From: "Xialiang (Frank)" To: "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHP8cxCqkHNu7fev0a7WSw4j1qrXJxD0sEQ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:44:57 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.135.42.200] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/aU37Ik5zAtIctZvJLtEOUiN7rQk Subject: [Lime] FW: New Version Notification for draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-01.txt X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:45:07 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KV2Ugc3VibWl0IGEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgTElNRSBnYXAgYW5hbHlzaXMgZHJh ZnQsIHdoaWNoIGFpbXMgdG8gYW5hbHl6ZSB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgbWFuYWdlbWVudCBwbGFuZSBP QU0gcmVsYXRlZCB3b3JrcyBpbiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgU0RPcyBhZ2FpbnN0IHRoZSBrZXkgb2JqZWN0 aXZlcyBvZiBMSU1FLCB0byBmaW5kIHRoZSBnYXAgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGVtLiAgDQpZb3VyIGNvbW1l bnRzIGFyZSB3YXJtbHkgd2VsY29tZSENCg0KQi5SLg0KRnJhbmsNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFs IE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpp bnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQo+IFNlbnQ6IE1vbmRheSwgT2N0b2JlciAyNywgMjAx NCA1OjU2IFBNDQo+IFRvOiBYaWFsaWFuZyAoRnJhbmspOyBYaWFsaWFuZyAoRnJhbmspOyBZdWpp IFRvY2hpbzsgSHV1YiB2YW4gSGVsdm9vcnQ7IEh1dWINCj4gdmFuIEhlbHZvb3J0OyBZdWppIFRv Y2hpbw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yDQo+IGRyYWZ0LXR4 aC1vcHNhd2ctbGltZS1nYXAtYW5hbHlzaXMtMDEudHh0DQo+IA0KPiANCj4gQSBuZXcgdmVyc2lv biBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LXR4aC1vcHNhd2ctbGltZS1nYXAtYW5hbHlzaXMtMDEudHh0DQo+IGhh cyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgTGlhbmcgKEZyYW5rKSBYaWEgYW5kIHBv c3RlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURg0KPiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KPiANCj4gTmFtZToJCWRyYWZ0LXR4aC1v cHNhd2ctbGltZS1nYXAtYW5hbHlzaXMNCj4gUmV2aXNpb246CTAxDQo+IFRpdGxlOgkJR2FwIEFu YWx5c2lzIGZvciBMYXllciBhbmQgVGVjaG5vbG9neSBJbmRlcGVuZGVudCBPQU0NCj4gTWFuYWdl bWVudCBpbiB0aGUgTXVsdGktTGF5ZXIgRW52aXJvbm1lbnQNCj4gRG9jdW1lbnQgZGF0ZToJMjAx NC0xMC0yNg0KPiBHcm91cDoJCUluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KPiBQYWdlczoJCTEyDQo+ IFVSTDoNCj4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJhZnQtdHhoLW9w c2F3Zy1saW1lLWdhcC1hbmFseXNpcy0wMS50eHQNCj4gU3RhdHVzOg0KPiBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0 cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC10eGgtb3BzYXdnLWxpbWUtZ2FwLWFuYWx5c2lzLw0K PiBIdG1saXplZDoNCj4gaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtdHhoLW9wc2F3 Zy1saW1lLWdhcC1hbmFseXNpcy0wMQ0KPiBEaWZmOg0KPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3Jm Y2RpZmY/dXJsMj1kcmFmdC10eGgtb3BzYXdnLWxpbWUtZ2FwLWFuYWx5c2lzLTAxDQo+IA0KPiBB YnN0cmFjdDoNCj4gICAgVGhpcyBkcmFmdCBhbmFseXNlcyB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgbWFuYWdlbWVu dCBwbGFuZSBPQU0gcmVsYXRlZCB3b3Jrcw0KPiAgICBpbiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgU0RPcywgYWdhaW5z dCB0aGUga2V5IG9iamVjdGl2ZXMgb2YgTGF5ZXIgSW5kZXBlbmRlbnQNCj4gICAgT0FNIE1hbmFn ZW1lbnQgKExJTUUpLCB0byBmaW5kIHRoZSBnYXAgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGVtLiAgVGhlIHJlc3VsdHMN Cj4gY2FuDQo+ICAgIGJlIHVzZWQgYXMgdGhlIGd1aWRhbmNlIGZvciBmdXJ0aGVyIHdvcmsuICBU aGlzIGdhcCBhbmFseXNpcyBpcyBub3QNCj4gICAgdGFyZ2V0ZWQgYXQgTDAtTDIgdHJhbnNwb3J0 IE9BTSBpbiBJVFUtVCwgZWl0aGVyIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgc3BlY2lmaWMNCj4gICAgb3IgZ2VuZXJp YyBhY3Jvc3MgdGhvc2UgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLiAgUmF0aGVyLCBpdCBpcyBpbnRlbmRlZCB0bw0K PiAgICBsZXZlcmFnZSBrbm93bGVkZ2UgZnJvbSB0aGF0IGRvbWFpbiBmb3IgdGhlIGJlbmVmaXQg b2YgZGV2ZWxvcGluZw0KPiAgICBnZW5lcmljIGxheWVyIGluZGVwZW5kZW50IE9BTSBtYW5hZ2Vt ZW50IGZvciBMMy1MNyAoYW5kIEwyLjUgTVBMUw0KPiAgICBPQU0pLg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiAN Cj4gUGxlYXNlIG5vdGUgdGhhdCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20g dGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygc3VibWlzc2lvbg0KPiB1bnRpbCB0aGUgaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhbmQg ZGlmZiBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnLg0KPiANCj4gVGhlIElFVEYgU2Vj cmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K From nobody Mon Oct 27 05:48:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5861A906D; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:43:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 nOxGmwOtLL2C; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5F21A8AD9; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.123] (static-72-71-250-38.cncdnh.fast04.myfairpoint.net [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9C928DB4DC; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:43:30 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\)) From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" In-Reply-To: <000e01cff17d$bd0d5f90$37281eb0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:43:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <544CC985.9060808@pi.nu> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B86EE25@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <000601cff179$707a8c10$516fa430$@olddog.co.uk> <544D8EAA.9090909@gmail.com> <000e01cff17d$bd0d5f90$37281eb0$@olddog.co.uk> To: Farrel Adrian X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/rMDlBLCP2lIjsu0Hc-ZxNCtCtJk X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:48:29 -0700 Cc: Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org, david.sinicrope@ericsson.com, lime@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, Tom Taylor Subject: Re: [Lime] [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:43:35 -0000 > On Oct 26, 2014:8:34 PM, at 8:34 PM, Adrian Farrel = wrote: >=20 > [Adding Netmod, but removing MPLS] >=20 > A good pointer, Tom, thanks. >=20 > The liaison seems to request review and feedback, but I don't see a = response > from Netmod and it looks like the MEF Technical Committee is meeting = today and > in the next few days.=20 We have a draft response that we crafted and posted to the = mailing list, but it seems never was sent out. I will post now to the = list to see if there are any more comments. > I think that if LIME had existed at the time the liaison arrived, it = is probable > that it would also have been a recipient.=20 Should NETMOD respond since it was addressed to us or will LIME = respond? --Tom >=20 > We should certainly strive to work with MEF and build on existing = work. >=20 > Adrian >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com] >> Sent: 27 October 2014 00:16 >> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Gregory Mirsky'; 'Loa Andersson'; = lime@ietf.org; > Rtg- >> yang-coord@ietf.org >> Cc: mpls@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question >>=20 >> This might be a good time to remind/alert people about the liaison >> statement received from the MEF regarding >> draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model. It can be found at >>=20 >> = https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2014-07-31-mef- >> netmod-liaison-to-ietf-on-yang-service-oam-models-attachment-1.pdf >>=20 >> Tom Taylor >>=20 >> On 26/10/2014 8:03 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>> The intention of LIME (who knows whether it is achievable?) is to = produce a >>> single YANG module that provides a generic way in to OAM across all = IETF >>> technologies. >>>=20 >>> There are certainly a number of core concepts, configurable items, = and >>> reportable things that can be stated in a technology independent = way. >>>=20 >>> LIME has as a deliverable a set of applicability statements showing = how the >>> generic module is applied to different IETF OAM technologies. >>>=20 >>> I should not be surprised if technology-specific modules are also = required. > I >>> think LIME hopes that these will build on the generic module and not > reinvent. I >>> assume this will be through augmentation. And I assume the work will = be done >> by >>> the WGs that own the technologies (where those WGs exist). >>>=20 >>> I don't think I understand your tree. Why would "RSVP-TE OAM" live = under >> rsvp-te >>> under mpls? The OAM is going to be standard mpls oam, but the = concepts >> (MIPs, >>> MEPs, on/off, failure found, etc.) are general. >>>=20 >>> Adrian >>>=20 >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of >>>> Gregory Mirsky >>>> Sent: 26 October 2014 18:51 >>>> To: Loa Andersson; lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org >>>> Cc: mpls@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question >>>>=20 >>>> Hi Loa, >>>> I think that your question is not simple at all and it would be a = great to >>> discuss >>>> how Generic OAM proposal is related to MPLS OAM at the meeting. >>>> Personally, I think that there's no separate LDP, RSVP-TE or EVPN, = Segment >>>> Routing (as far as transport layer for the latter two) OAMs but one = MPLS > OAM >>>> with extensions/special cases for IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP and Segment = Routing >>>> networks. >>>>=20 >>>> Regards, >>>> Greg >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of >>>> Loa Andersson >>>> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:14 AM >>>> To: lime@ietf.org; Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] hopefully a simple question >>>>=20 >>>> Folks, >>>>=20 >>>> I have what I hope is a simple question, and that it will only = reveal that > I'm >>> not up >>>> to speed on yang. >>>>=20 >>>> I trying to figure out the relationship between the generic yang = models in >>> e.g. >>>> draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model and the specific models we do for = different >>>> variants of e.g. mpls oam. >>>>=20 >>>> I guess we have a structure more or less like this >>>>=20 >>>> mpls >>>> | >>>> |- ldp >>>> | |-ldp oam >>>> | >>>> |- rsvp-te >>>> | | >>>> | |- rsvp-te oam >>>> | >>>> |- lsp ping >>>> | | >>>> | |- lsp ping oam >>>> | >>>> |- etc >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Where does the generic work fit in? >>>>=20 >>>> /Loa >>>> -- >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >>>> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list >>>> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list >>>> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list >>> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord >>>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord >=20 From nobody Mon Oct 27 06:23:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13F21A9024 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:23:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 miUm62HsXUEo for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CD3F1A8AA7 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:23:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4937; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414416189; x=1415625789; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=bGmR5f3kv/mNu5H0th36kY31rLNU0uzHv3sbLzMocRk=; b=TzOCjyqL5McFhq/lTwll7AEFLGvFF0R3q3ODqROHTCb+h9auxo7sw2fc bgVz6qWy+1W9JO1Xa1I9cdzlIxtWK+sFCri7G4TuGxiW9Ril7jhersJio MbL5Mz0zwTAxdaQ21JUZYKNAa3OHPy2HYaLf7KCBPniqT5CICrKoQwT52 c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFANVFTlStJA2F/2dsb2JhbABcgmsjVFgEzTIBCYdNAoEZFgF9hAMBAQQBAQFrCxACAQgEOwcnCxQRAQEEDgWIQQEMykABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBJAmEQFMBAeDLYEeBY9pgh6ESIcSgTGDSY00hACDeGyBDzmBAwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,796,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="363646930" Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 13:23:09 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9RDN82m014662 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:23:08 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:23:08 -0500 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: Yuji Tochio Thread-Topic: [Lime] IETF 91 Thread-Index: Ac/skwy4TIYT93z3SfWxsqY8GuUiHQFIEWgAABfvDwA= Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:23:07 +0000 Message-ID: <7AD4F50C-92A4-4A79-A4A1-DA49AE4005D2@cisco.com> References: <544DA69E.3040708@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <544DA69E.3040708@jp.fujitsu.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.150.172.248] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AD4F50C92A44A79A4A1DA49AE4005D2ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/6I5_YIrSAKhLi4NZczE88wG-J_Y Cc: "Ronald P. Bonica" , "lime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF 91 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:23:11 -0000 --_000_7AD4F50C92A44A79A4A1DA49AE4005D2ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Yuji, Added to the agenda. WG, New version of the agenda uploaded at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/= 91/agenda/lime/. We have a tight agenda for our first meeting. Please revie= w. Presenters, Please send in your presentations to Ron and myself as soon as you have the= m. Thanks, Carlos. On Oct 26, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Yuji Tochio > wrote: Hi Rom I am sorry for late reply... We (Authors of draft-txh..) would like to ask for 5 min to present the gap = analysis draft. And the version 01 will be posted today. Thanks, Yuji and Authors of draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis (2014/10/21 3:28), Ronald Bonica wrote: Folks, It's time to start planning the agenda for IETF 91. Would the authors of the following drafts please send email indicated wheth= er you intend to present and how much time you need: - draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps - draft-king-opsawg-lime-multi-layer-oam-use-case-00 - draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-00 Also, if anyone else needs agenda time, please reply to this message. Ron Bonica _______________________________________________ Lime mailing list Lime@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime _______________________________________________ Lime mailing list Lime@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime --_000_7AD4F50C92A44A79A4A1DA49AE4005D2ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <88A0470FE67E5D4E9807F6105094643C@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Yuji,

Added to the agenda.

WG,

New version of the agenda uploaded at https://datatra= cker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda/lime/. We have a tight agenda for our f= irst meeting. Please review.

Presenters,

Please send in your presentations to Ron and myself as soon= as you have them.

Thanks,

Carlos.

On Oct 26, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Yuji Tochio <tochio@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:<= /div>
Hi Rom

I am sorry for late reply...
We (Authors of draft-txh..) would like to ask for 5 min to present the gap = analysis draft.
And the version 01 will be posted today.

Thanks,
Yuji and Authors of draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis

(2014/10/21 3:28), Ronald Bonica wrote:
Folks,

It's time to start planning the agenda for IETF 91.

Would the authors of the following drafts please send email indicated wheth= er you intend to present and how much time you need:

- draft-edprop-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-ps
- draft-king-opsawg-lime-multi-layer-oam-use-case-00
- draft-txh-opsawg-lime-gap-analysis-00

Also, if anyone else needs agenda time, please reply to this message.

Ron Bonica

_______________________________________________
Lime mailing list
Lime@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime


_______________________________________________
Lime mailing list
Lime@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime

--_000_7AD4F50C92A44A79A4A1DA49AE4005D2ciscocom_--