Subject: [Lime] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-lime-00-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:52:55 -0700

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: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:57:44 +0200

Hi Spencer,
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/
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

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:19:44 +0200

Benoit,

> 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: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:33:24 +0200

Loa,
> 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

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:08:29 -0500

Hi, Benoit,

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lime/
>
>
>
> However, different operations groups from the same company are considered
> as the same admin domain.
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

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:20:19 +0200

On 16/10/2014 17:08, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Hi, Benoit,
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Spencer,
>     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.
> 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"?
>