From nobody Thu Jan 19 08:27:41 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A60127076; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:27:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.058 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.058 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com 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 Kp9GpbQdy4j3; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:27:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0120.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89062126B6D; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:27:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=KO+Sk0qsAzzn9DwfOJ2OuTOy+jecb1M7oB0DzCF+G2I=; b=TgtfHY6nRCclnKMmkICJz4RlAjI1lgdzW3dFU6aIPKB07MRDpOw2tZkU9b6FB2lBTgqNGhQYFJL/IWqnk3+MYV1+S/Ty6LkpNnzk/JtBVjP8ZvT3PqhtSSvfrppNoDB7SXbpzEyyn8dHu6pnWbbzwFMgW21PJXRz6tdAmyA2zfs= Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.21) by BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.860.6; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:12:14 +0000 Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.23.21]) by BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.23.21]) with mapi id 15.01.0860.012; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:12:14 +0000 From: Ron Bonica To: "lime@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam.all@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 Thread-Index: AdJybpjwy6XJbjqnRfKoMW2LrCMAfw== Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:12:14 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rbonica@juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.11] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d245be5a-e429-431d-d7c4-08d44085eeca x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2051; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR0501MB2051; 7:ujGNjzNDNsKVBa55Hkrkr9Uxf3ypchZu1TmGaiiPsL3G+MA/DcmzLI5+rXsS42NjIUpGgoug0YG6ebbMOeb+5MBlEOMkXsRtWicLKhpJO9JIpzFQ5yo2B1+FjmCnsMrmxjtbfhQ1N09qfSfbMxKcLoIDfgWpErNSKO4ysPvjVHeiATY0mM4WmIO/qP606gECU8qyi6NUnCIOupZd/+49DWLgxG97dMtsNDcFEMJ9Y9roqiY5tj9mDdCeTjqMGkll7Ar4fGwMfHDi9S9SLGsw6WecoKW7M9tFkIHKE1Vn1zTHE5weipPXzJ5bbTsSTbSzsrOaFqJQhnt9QrFZKG8T1q2HnAMImfT+1njdaLfZicHzD1/iKkSrx2n46m9kTp4yT2Z0rVCocEunETu/krh3GRiEJ3F+0V33Dt/HSak3tC0njufcgy6/qnUjHOswlcW2fLnJJ/vjmwLoRsT9ODYGKA== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(6072148); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2051; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2051; x-forefront-prvs: 0192E812EC x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39850400002)(39410400002)(199003)(189002)(53936002)(558084003)(6506006)(450100001)(68736007)(8936002)(107886002)(81156014)(230783001)(81166006)(189998001)(92566002)(2900100001)(38730400001)(3280700002)(97736004)(25786008)(2501003)(55016002)(6436002)(86362001)(77096006)(99286003)(3660700001)(5001770100001)(305945005)(7736002)(6116002)(102836003)(2906002)(54356999)(33656002)(74316002)(66066001)(3846002)(50986999)(5660300001)(106356001)(101416001)(122556002)(105586002)(9686003)(8676002)(7696004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2051; H:BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Jan 2017 16:12:14.5179 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0501MB2051 Archived-At: Subject: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 19 Jan 2017 16:27:40 -0000 Folks, This message begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-lime-yang-conne= ctionless-oam-03. Please submit comments by February 3, 2017. = Ron From nobody Thu Jan 19 08:30:06 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64BB112948B; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:30:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.058 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.058 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com 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 6Qcg5UxaLJW4; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:30:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0102.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1C97129448; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:29:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=3QZgxjRLVvUGROSgKxsfBoreDvVa6P2d3ixCKs7yXJ8=; b=hgJJhv4eYKbwUvOeaJ/jqRQiNMLAL83/Yx/+T4qjUeYUUrPLU/vv3EXvxhbMqwEUfn5FUPBb/44YdcvlPg6QjDNofpNx9OZDzTSvCAlFPhGI6hYdfFTYgdG4Lb5TRVAXNHMFas2IYRSn6LuUTrLLGwL4QOU+FdxLqI6Y6tnh6gE= Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.21) by BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.860.6; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:13:56 +0000 Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.23.21]) by BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.23.21]) with mapi id 15.01.0860.012; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:13:56 +0000 From: Ron Bonica To: "lime@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 Thread-Index: AdJybvO/bRLWgKWzTfmpQHUffN61mA== Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:13:56 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rbonica@juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.11] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6d363d0c-9583-4bee-8561-08d440862b4d x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2051; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR0501MB2051; 7:nyiBAs+uMvSiOF2XwyhPv4900erHVwQ70ys6ecW5gxa3pVw7chXZwNMv7Mgw2Ol/LdgrmPf6HDygtmrsJhlZ3UUdZDTVtzKVC3jxbL8CBkG9ieII0ZSR+OgtSgRL/LMDjd8N+To4YLybZ9LKA6cPkg4t5z3ST7j2ecrJRiKyBkBJv3urRWpw5wlM0WEx0Gv1nrsV0P4E1mxvYoInDgMJrwTDMTk3C50G7EGzaoGnswOJJQQwE/OB61bV0Wop5cVbE/xagt9nGuE0Bekd3qH2ard1VEZf+kGcqyRev4nSj+5kgHJU23bBzoTtd43JCFJHavwMr3ejjMyh62fAqZImlecqYFQfN8SXnK6xfcgRTeEmsPW4wbf68qA5HMt93EC8UjtLlXPhlaNAm+Cr4GEVt/Kfm7xVG5HyZj2tQfqdnHd9yH6ziol+Ot5xglfzUAEgKFyyzVTBFrnFy3a+/TAhWw== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(6072148); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2051; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2051; x-forefront-prvs: 0192E812EC x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39850400002)(39410400002)(199003)(189002)(53936002)(558084003)(6506006)(450100001)(68736007)(8936002)(107886002)(81156014)(230783001)(81166006)(189998001)(92566002)(2900100001)(38730400001)(3280700002)(97736004)(25786008)(2501003)(55016002)(6436002)(86362001)(77096006)(99286003)(3660700001)(5001770100001)(305945005)(7736002)(6116002)(102836003)(2906002)(54356999)(33656002)(74316002)(66066001)(3846002)(50986999)(5660300001)(106356001)(101416001)(122556002)(105586002)(9686003)(8676002)(7696004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2051; H:BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Jan 2017 16:13:56.0797 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0501MB2051 Archived-At: Subject: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 19 Jan 2017 16:30:05 -0000 Folks, This message begins a WGLC on draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08. Please sub= mit comments by February 3, 2017. Ron From nobody Mon Jan 23 20:40:27 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B00129569; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:40:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.155 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.155 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.com 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 f543xTzvaLdM; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:40:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from BAY004-OMC1S20.hotmail.com (bay004-omc1s20.hotmail.com [65.54.190.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 933E7129567; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:40:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.54.190.61]) by BAY004-OMC1S20.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:40:22 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=5V0LgA+64hF8GjRagbxWB9A5Gz0mSpyNGtscXKymR6s=; b=L3TvQSJ0Jo31NlONqc0SB3d/QU17LqHtr+9QYkOZhJUm72Aw0dL1OB/0Md0mSI6JWJMST89ljzVsoNSesojOxeADrbmYxig1x6HFDL3L/6tJlGqJSoQl1hNh5ymymo0LoauJUt7ekIqmvf0VroAQzzsb1DEiCmU4Km2uJ8+EvcqYkaxSj9tCTlHgfgmFLFsGf0GCNxZ2uU27ymRTghwP7gr4pUgRi2UaqiYqCm3kj1ylaFwojbTskJ3Oj00cBl9pA3ho3/Zjq84TS5rZMPF7ausX9rMKbV8bT0uk1x9gIeypv960JLz28xf70KWZUeWcW5PFz+rbfYjv3mdSlyagmA== Received: from HK2APC01FT032.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.248.59) by HK2APC01HT081.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.249.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.803.8; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:40:20 +0000 Received: from KL1PR0201MB1656.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.152.248.55) by HK2APC01FT032.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.248.188) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.803.8 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:40:19 +0000 Received: from KL1PR0201MB1656.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.58.150]) by KL1PR0201MB1656.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.58.150]) with mapi id 15.01.0860.021; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:40:19 +0000 From: =?gb2312?B?ucsgyNY=?= To: "draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org" , "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 Thread-Index: AQHSdfL81cclCtS9n0+X2+grw8sqEQ== Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:40:19 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: juniper.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;juniper.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=outlook.com; x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:22449123FA1BD2B59AFAEFADD0DA0287816F36CC64D2B05663CB5402444829EE; UpperCasedChecksum:9E16AF794C143B3B5FDC159C20429C6964511916AB27E57ADAD824198FF5D9CF; SizeAsReceived:7615; Count:37 x-tmn: [lIbdD8tZR+1hqXn/01q8TMMdgYDaaSYVDbwkfo3zhYI=] x-incomingheadercount: 37 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HK2APC01HT081; 7:9b//CuiqfshPQYrgpYftb01EIucAgcZ9NpPjal+4LvjlaMhNJa7AV3i+2cZd0nFMF/Z0Z9FRQX1aN3prdt6v2XEoGXFu5r5jJDd7GAsIJoydENyrrbgz3In7DpZ11GeNanQpfPDegmK/4qpiPUS3RvVHVsJiEXumoRd4bcpN6MbMa6StHDOklphv1rNCA8PdsEnGTQqPQd+KtopKEaLPZRCEbGsSmLrg5ccHWVLr6E2OY8EnxXCkHAPQn+rSbYmorg+wowN+E3hS/IUG0qUvO+8MOUxuRS0SJ8VXYYJy7Qa3qRHaZ/EnxOop2/I2BXNKVH3Ghl68QBXE4tmXr5mkXYkJBtAXzW2r7XLmSkzprSvm61Veuj4rSHl8cBxnihSv6EiYPdboHceYlAetCuL/aINxoBQ7B2oJXiisXG1k6jTDrEYfTQdGhFJJYwUs2jYN2dolwtniXjPryeD8FGKoVg== x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(98900005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:HK2APC01HT081; H:KL1PR0201MB1656.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 510f0281-ca96-4fb9-30d8-08d444131a16 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(1601124038)(5061506344)(5061507293)(1603103113)(1601125047)(1603101340)(1701031023); SRVR:HK2APC01HT081; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444111334)(444112120)(432015012)(82015046); SRVR:HK2APC01HT081; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HK2APC01HT081; x-forefront-prvs: 0197AFBD92 spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_KL1PR0201MB1656E08072978303854908728B750KL1PR0201MB1656_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Jan 2017 04:40:19.6708 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HK2APC01HT081 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2017 04:40:23.0030 (UTC) FILETIME=[F97FA960:01D275FB] Archived-At: Cc: "rbonica@juniper.net" Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:40:26 -0000 --_000_KL1PR0201MB1656E08072978303854908728B750KL1PR0201MB1656_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgZGVhciBhbGwsDQoNCg0KDQpBZnRlciByZWFkaW5nIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQsIGhlcmUgYXJl IHNvbWUgdGlueSBjb21tZW50cy4NCg0KMSkgICAgICBJbiBwYWdlIDIyOiBUaGUgcmFuZ2Ugb2Yg TUQtbGV2ZWwgaXMgMC4uMjU1LCBidXQgdGhlIHR5cGUgZGVmaW5lZCBoZXJlIGlzIHVpbnQzMi4g VWludDggbWF5IGJlIGEgbW9yZSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHR5cGUuDQoNCjIpICAgICAgSW4gcGFnZSAz NDogVGhlIHJhbmdlIG9mIHBhY2tldC1zaXplIGlzIDY0Li4xMDAwLCB0aGVyZWZvcmUsIEkgdGhp bmsgdWludDE2IG1heSBiZSBhIG1vcmUgcmVhc29uYWJsZSB0eXBlLg0KDQozKSAgICAgIEluIHBh Z2UgMzY6IHNhbWUgYXMgdGhlIHByZXZpb3VzIGNvbW1lbnQuDQoNCg0KQmVzaWRlcywgSSBzdXBw b3J0IHRoZSBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGFzIGFuIFJGQy4NCg0KDQpHdVJv bmcNCg0KZ3Vyb25nX2NtY2NAb3V0bG9vay5jb20NCg0KZ3Vyb25nQGNoaW5hbW9iaWxlLmNvbQ0K DQoNCg0KLS0tLS3Tyrz+1K28/i0tLS0tDQoNCreivP7IyzogUm9uIEJvbmljYSBbbWFpbHRvOnJi b25pY2FAanVuaXBlci5uZXRdDQoNCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE3xOox1MIyMMjVIDA6MTQNCg0KytW8 /sjLOiBsaW1lQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpsaW1lQGlldGYub3JnPjsgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1saW1l LXlhbmctb2FtLW1vZGVsLmFsbEBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1saW1lLXlhbmct b2FtLW1vZGVsLmFsbEBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCg0K1vfM4jogV0dMQzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1saW1lLXlh bmctb2FtLW1vZGVsLTA4DQoNCg0KDQpGb2xrcywNCg0KDQoNClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBiZWdpbnMg YSBXR0xDIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbGltZS15YW5nLW9hbS1tb2RlbC0wOC4gUGxlYXNlIHN1Ym1p dCBjb21tZW50cyBieSBGZWJydWFyeSAzLCAyMDE3Lg0KDQoNCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFJvbg0KDQoNCg0K --_000_KL1PR0201MB1656E08072978303854908728B750KL1PR0201MB1656_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi dear all,

 

After reading this document,= here are some tiny comments.

1)    &n= bsp; In page 22: The range of MD-level is 0..255, but the type defined here= is uint32. Uint8 may be a more reasonable type.

2)    &n= bsp; In page 34: The range of packet-size is 64..1000, therefore, I think u= int16 may be a more reasonable type.

3)    &n= bsp; In page 36: same as the previous comment.


Besides, I support the publication of this d= ocument as an RFC.


GuRong

gurong_cmcc@outlook.com

gurong@chinamobile.com

 

-----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE-----

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Ron Bonica [= mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]

=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2017=C4=EA1=D4=C220=C8=D5 0:14

=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: lime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org

=D6=F7=CC=E2: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08

 

Folks,

 

This message begins a WGLC o= n draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08. Please submit comments by February 3, = 2017.

 

    &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Ron

 


--_000_KL1PR0201MB1656E08072978303854908728B750KL1PR0201MB1656_-- From nobody Mon Jan 23 23:25:08 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE4C129577; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:25:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.42 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 nMkHFN1fsGEP; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:25:04 -0800 (PST) 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 0623F12956E; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:25:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DFC12526; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:25:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:24:59 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.43]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:24:49 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Ron Bonica , "lime@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam.all@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 Thread-Index: AdJybpjwy6XJbjqnRfKoMW2LrCMAfwDoocmQ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:24:48 +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: [10.136.78.218] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.5887014E.024C, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.2.43, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: e36beb9897f6eb617ef72f3f0593fe1f Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:25:08 -0000 U3VwcG9ydCBhbmQgSSBoYXZlIGEgZmV3IHN1Z2dlc3RlZCBjaGFuZ2VzIHRvIHYtKDAzKS4NCjEu IEFkZCByZWZlcmVuY2UgZm9yIFByb2FjdGl2ZSBPQU0gc2Vzc2lvbiwgSSB0aGluayBSRkM3Mjc2 IHByb3ZpZGVzIA0KIGEgZ29vZCByZWZlcmVuY2VzIGZvciB0aGUgdGVybSAncHJvYWN0aXZlIGFj dGl2YXRpb24nLg0KMi4gQWRkIHJlZmVyZW5jZSBmb3IgYWN0aXZlLCBwYXNzaXZlIGFuZCBoeWJy aWQgT0FNLCBJIHRoaW5rIFJGQzc3OTkNCnByb3ZpZGVzIGEgZ29vZCByZWZlcmVuY2VzIGZvciBh Y3RpdmUgbWV0aG9kLCBwYXNzaXZlIG1ldGhvZCBhbmQgaHlicmlkIG1ldGhvZA0KVGhlc2UgbWV0 aG9kcyBhcmUgcmVsYXRlZCB0byBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCwgd2hpY2ggaXMgcGFy dCBvZiBPQU0uIFRoZXJlZm9yZSBSRkM3Nzk5IHdvdWxkIGJlIGEgZ29vZCANCnJlZmVyZW5jZSBm b3IgYWN0aXZlIHBhc3NpdmUgYW5kIGh5YnJpZCBPQU0uDQozLkFkZCBpbmZvcm1hdGl2ZSByZWZl cmVuY2UgdG8gSS1ELmlldGYtbGltZS15YW5nLWNvbm5lY3Rpb25sZXNzLW9hbS1tZXRob2RzLg0K NC4gQ2hhbmdlIFtsaW1lIHJldHJpZXZhbCBtZXRob2RzXSBpbnRvIFtJLUQuaWV0Zi1saW1lLXlh bmctY29ubmVjdGlvbmxlc3Mtb2FtLW1ldGhvZHNdLg0KNS4gU2VjdGlvbiAzDQpPTEQgVEVYVDoN CiINClRoZSBsZXZlbCBpbiBvYW0tbGF5ZXJzIGluZGljYXRlIHdoZXRoZXIgcmVsYXRlZCBvYW0g dGVzdCBwb2ludCBpcw0KY2xpZW50IGxheWVyLCBzZXJ2ZXIgbGF5ZXIgb3Igc2FtZSBsYXllci4N CiINCk5FVyBURVhUOg0KIg0KVGhlIGxldmVsIGluIG9hbS1sYXllcnMgaW5kaWNhdGUgd2hldGhl ciByZWxhdGVkIG9hbSB0ZXN0IHBvaW50IGlzDQppbiBjbGllbnQgbGF5ZXIobG93ZXIgbGF5ZXIg ZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluIHNlY3Rpb24gMy4zKSwgc2VydmVyIGxheWVyDQoodXBwZXIgbGF5ZXIgZGVz Y3JpYmVkIGluIHNlY3Rpb24gMy4zKSBvciB0aGUgc2FtZSBsYXllciBhcyB0aGUgY3VycmVudCAN CnRlc3QgcG9pbnQgdW5kZXIgVGVzdCBwb2ludCBMb2NhdGlvbnMuDQoiDQo2LiBTZWN0aW9uIDYs IGNvbXBsZXRlIHRoZSBlbXB0eSBzZWN0aW9uIGFzIGZvbGxvd3M6DQoiDQogICBUaGUgWUFORyBt b2R1bGUgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiB0aGlzIG1lbW8gaXMgZGVzaWduZWQgdG8gYmUgYWNjZXNzZWQgdmlh DQogICB0aGUgTkVUQ09ORiBwcm90b2NvbCBbUkZDNjI0MV0gW1JGQzYyNDFdLiAgVGhlIGxvd2Vz dCBORVRDT05GIGxheWVyDQogICBpcyB0aGUgc2VjdXJlIHRyYW5zcG9ydCBsYXllciBhbmQgdGhl IG1hbmRhdG9yeS10by1pbXBsZW1lbnQgc2VjdXJlDQogICB0cmFuc3BvcnQgaXMgU1NIIFtSRkM2 MjQyXSBbUkZDNjI0Ml0uICBUaGUgTkVUQ09ORiBhY2Nlc3MgY29udHJvbA0KICAgbW9kZWwgW1JG QzY1MzZdIFtSRkM2NTM2XSBwcm92aWRlcyB0aGUgbWVhbnMgdG8gcmVzdHJpY3QgYWNjZXNzIGZv cg0KICAgcGFydGljdWxhciBORVRDT05GIHVzZXJzIHRvIGEgcHJlLWNvbmZpZ3VyZWQgc3Vic2V0 IG9mIGFsbCBhdmFpbGFibGUNCiAgIE5FVENPTkYgcHJvdG9jb2wgb3BlcmF0aW9ucyBhbmQgY29u dGVudC4NCg0KICAgVGhlcmUgYXJlIGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGRhdGEgbm9kZXMgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiB0 aGUgWUFORyBtb2R1bGUgd2hpY2ggYXJlDQogICB3cml0YWJsZS9jcmVhdGFibGUvZGVsZXRhYmxl IChpLmUuLCBjb25maWcgdHJ1ZSwgd2hpY2ggaXMgdGhlDQogICBkZWZhdWx0KS4gIFRoZXNlIGRh dGEgbm9kZXMgbWF5IGJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgc2Vuc2l0aXZlIG9yIHZ1bG5lcmFibGUNCiAgIGlu IHNvbWUgbmV0d29yayBlbnZpcm9ubWVudHMuICBXcml0ZSBvcGVyYXRpb25zIChlLmcuLCA8ZWRp dC1jb25maWc+KQ0KICAgdG8gdGhlc2UgZGF0YSBub2RlcyB3aXRob3V0IHByb3BlciBwcm90ZWN0 aW9uIGNhbiBoYXZlIGEgbmVnYXRpdmUNCiAgIGVmZmVjdCBvbiBuZXR3b3JrIG9wZXJhdGlvbnMu DQoNCiAgIFRoZSB2dWxuZXJhYmxlICJjb25maWcgdHJ1ZSIgc3VidHJlZXMgYW5kIGRhdGEgbm9k ZXMgYXJlIHRoZQ0KICAgZm9sbG93aW5nOg0KDQovbmQ6bmV0d29ya3MvbmQ6bmV0d29yay9uZDpu b2RlL2NvYW06bG9jYXRpb24tdHlwZS9jb2FtOmlwdjQtbG9jYXRpb24tdHlwZS9jb2FtOnRlc3Qt cG9pbnQtaXB2NC1sb2NhdGlvbi1saXN0L2NvYW06dGVzdC1wb2ludC1sb2NhdGlvbnMvDQovbmQ6 bmV0d29ya3MvbmQ6bmV0d29yay9uZDpub2RlL2NvYW06bG9jYXRpb24tdHlwZS9jb2FtOmlwdjYt bG9jYXRpb24tdHlwZS9jb2FtOnRlc3QtcG9pbnQtaXB2Ni1sb2NhdGlvbi1saXN0L2NvYW06dGVz dC1wb2ludC1sb2NhdGlvbnMvDQovbmQ6bmV0d29ya3MvbmQ6bmV0d29yay9uZDpub2RlL2NvYW06 bG9jYXRpb24tdHlwZS9jb2FtOm1hYy1sb2NhdGlvbi10eXBlL2NvYW06dGVzdC1wb2ludC1tYWMt YWRkcmVzcy1sb2NhdGlvbi1saXN0L2NvYW06dGVzdC1wb2ludC1sb2NhdGlvbnMvDQovbmQ6bmV0 d29ya3MvbmQ6bmV0d29yay9uZDpub2RlL2NvYW06bG9jYXRpb24tdHlwZS9jb2FtOnR1bm5lbC1s b2NhdGlvbi10eXBlL2NvYW06dGVzdC1wb2ludC10dW5uZWwtYWRkcmVzcy1sb2NhdGlvbi1saXN0 L2NvYW06dGVzdC1wb2ludC1sb2NhdGlvbnMvDQovbmQ6bmV0d29ya3MvbmQ6bmV0d29yay9uZDpu b2RlL2NvYW06bG9jYXRpb24tdHlwZS9jb2FtOmlwLXByZWZpeC1sb2NhdGlvbi10eXBlL2NvYW06 dGVzdC1wb2ludC1pcC1wcmVmaXgtbG9jYXRpb24tbGlzdC9jb2FtOnRlc3QtcG9pbnQtbG9jYXRp b25zLw0KL25kOm5ldHdvcmtzL25kOm5ldHdvcmsvbmQ6bm9kZS9jb2FtOmxvY2F0aW9uLXR5cGUv Y29hbTpyb3V0ZS1kaXN0aW5ndWlzaGVyLWxvY2F0aW9uLXR5cGUvY29hbTp0ZXN0LXBvaW50LXJv dXRlLWRpc3QtbG9jYXRpb24tbGlzdC9jb2FtOnRlc3QtcG9pbnQtbG9jYXRpb25zLw0KL25kOm5l dHdvcmtzL25kOm5ldHdvcmsvbmQ6bm9kZS9jb2FtOmxvY2F0aW9uLXR5cGUvY29hbTpncm91cC1p cC1hZGRyZXNzLWxvY2F0aW9uLXR5cGUvY29hbTp0ZXN0LXBvaW50LWdyb3VwLWlwLWFkZHJlc3Mt bG9jYXRpb24tbGlzdC9jb2FtOnRlc3QtcG9pbnQtbG9jYXRpb25zLw0KL25kOm5ldHdvcmtzL25k Om5ldHdvcmsvbmQ6bm9kZS9jb2FtOmxvY2F0aW9uLXR5cGUvY29hbTpncm91cC1hcy1udW1iZXIt bG9jYXRpb24tdHlwZS9jb2FtOnRlc3QtcG9pbnQtYXMtbnVtYmVyLWxvY2F0aW9uLWxpc3QvY29h bTp0ZXN0LXBvaW50LWxvY2F0aW9ucy8NCi9uZDpuZXR3b3Jrcy9uZDpuZXR3b3JrL25kOm5vZGUv Y29hbTpsb2NhdGlvbi10eXBlL2NvYW06Z3JvdXAtbHNwLWlkLWxvY2F0aW9uLXR5cGUvY29hbTp0 ZXN0LXBvaW50LWxzcC1pZC1sb2NhdGlvbi1saXN0L2NvYW06dGVzdC1wb2ludC1sb2NhdGlvbnMv DQovbmQ6bmV0d29ya3MvbmQ6bmV0d29yay9uZDpub2RlL2NvYW06bG9jYXRpb24tdHlwZS9jb2Ft Omdyb3VwLXN5c3RlbS1pZC1sb2NhdGlvbi10eXBlL2NvYW06dGVzdC1wb2ludC1zeXN0ZW0taW5m by1sb2NhdGlvbi1saXN0L2NvYW06dGVzdC1wb2ludC1sb2NhdGlvbnMvDQoNCg0KICAgVW5hdXRo b3JpemVkIGFjY2VzcyB0byBhbnkgb2YgdGhlc2UgbGlzdHMgY2FuIGFkdmVyc2VseSBhZmZlY3Qg T0FNDQogICBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IHN5c3RlbSBoYW5kbGluZyBvZiBlbmQtdG8tZW5kIE9BTSBhbmQg Y29vcmRpbmF0aW9uIG9mIE9BTQ0KICAgd2l0aGluIHVuZGVybHlpbmcgbmV0d29yayBsYXllcnMu IFRoaXMgbWF5IGxlYWQgdG8gaW5jb25zaXN0ZW50DQogICBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uLCByZXBvcnRp bmcsIGFuZCBwcmVzZW50YXRpb24gZm9yIHRoZSBPQU0gbWVjaGFuaXNtcw0KICAgdXNlZCB0byBt YW5hZ2UgdGhlIG5ldHdvcmsuDQoiDQoNCi1RaW4NCi0tLS0t08q8/tStvP4tLS0tLQ0Kt6K8/sjL OiBMaW1lIFttYWlsdG86bGltZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSC0+rHtIFJvbiBCb25pY2ENCrei y83KsbzkOiAyMDE3xOox1MIyMMjVIDA6MTINCsrVvP7IyzogbGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZzsgZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1saW1lLXlhbmctY29ubmVjdGlvbmxlc3Mtb2FtLmFsbEBpZXRmLm9yZw0K1vfM4jogW0xp bWVdIFdHTEM6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbGltZS15YW5nLWNvbm5lY3Rpb25sZXNzLW9hbS0wMw0KDQpG b2xrcywNCg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGJlZ2lucyBhIFdvcmtpbmcgR3JvdXAgTGFzdCBDYWxsIG9u IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbGltZS15YW5nLWNvbm5lY3Rpb25sZXNzLW9hbS0wMy4gUGxlYXNlIHN1Ym1p dCBjb21tZW50cyBieSBGZWJydWFyeSAzLCAyMDE3Lg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgUm9u DQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpMaW1l IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KTGltZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1h bi9saXN0aW5mby9saW1lDQo= From nobody Mon Jan 23 23:38:21 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB5C12957A; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:38:19 -0800 (PST) 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 65YUmC59Qtg5; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ua0-x22c.google.com (mail-ua0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8169A129578; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 35so128030753uak.1; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:38:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bitnUC8+O7GNup6eKVsIBhiKY8lQauu+ggrCNzLPPJY=; b=PfFntI84MWxnHSoPEv2RVrk1KXdRXI/odC29ogws6YuoLAZCyf/hchdH88u6xkM3vJ Vjv2ACZA9Cl2IRFTVLP/dhsx3vUn3379t67D/dS/nItnzKI4im3iwPKJx4F/doQj7HI9 HYCAz9WRCC4diPpi5Hshaf2LORJIjNsj1WPx4gjNKZJOxm1EjCPWTvouew6B9XqKT9L1 p5Eqc0Av+4R7v/gHjjk0Y1vPA0js0TsUKjBx5EBO0Vwjf/gQvbt81V8oFlfH7PztD43f h8Jk7AKzb6d0ZVue5CQFZA5T9UKd837HrX2n64WXFIE3jFwCWZZNdMgm8VZwJzL++ayM UrIg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bitnUC8+O7GNup6eKVsIBhiKY8lQauu+ggrCNzLPPJY=; b=YOP4uPtzHblTinhhsv3oRoVVX/QkA3h2pdVPCpQr3II6j59fDNyRBQhM9glDHhBLDY 4SIw/+8BJz54UUlfu3YsMmXNVS9sHkkuv/WeNWHsEwezAQPwkZk8Lw3cxxJ7OPfy/Erv JnfK3z4OXrT3S2Hc8gzNoDSXAY0GH7/bycF1bmcf0gL7nfG+E94ZFdE37M/GcnNE9cGk YMs682KjKzHuO9LNb8BvI8XWQDipJjjYJBEEZ/2kiJVIT4vuwkcWqJqxNxIVehtMUlUR N63FFAzvgXZN+90zcH/SunK+Yo0VCrYtbcp1oP3y2ukeSTDO4a9EQFiAmzI6GuteFifq 32lQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJfw8c5iMGvEfx/u7gQN2/VyJxzOOy1mooWutKdnZ0IVj72lpVI6cvg+jmVOTGlJJhPL3kwOML9biBTag== X-Received: by 10.176.7.101 with SMTP id h92mr17284388uah.116.1485243496435; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:38:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.186.140 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:38:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Dapeng Liu Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:38:16 +0800 Message-ID: To: Ron Bonica Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0b76940298a50546d2335c Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam.all@ietf.org" , "lime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:38:20 -0000 --94eb2c0b76940298a50546d2335c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, "I have read the most recent revision,and think it is ready for publication. One nits I spot is in section 7: " name: ietf-connectionless-oam namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang: ietf-connectionless-oam prefix: goam reference: RFC XXXX " I think the prefix should be "prefix:coam" instead of "prefix:goam" since the prfix:goam has been allocated for CO model. Thanks, Dapeng Liu 2017-01-20 0:12 GMT+08:00 Ron Bonica : > Folks, > > This message begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03. > Please submit comments by February 3, 2017. > > > Ron > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu --94eb2c0b76940298a50546d2335c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

"I have read the most = recent revision,and think it is ready for publication.
One nits I spot is in section= 7:
"= ;
name: i= etf-connectionless-oam namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-connectionless-= oam
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0prefix: goam reference: RFC XXXX
"
I think the prefix should be "prefix:c= oam" instead of "prefix:goam" since the prfix:goam has been = allocated for CO model.


Thanks,
Dapeng Liu

2017-01-20 0:12 GMT+08:00 Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net&g= t;:
Folks,

This message begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-lime-yang-= connectionless-oam-03. Please submit comments by February 3, 2017.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Ron

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



--

------
Best Regards,
Dapeng Liu
--94eb2c0b76940298a50546d2335c-- From nobody Tue Jan 24 00:22:55 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A936F12957F; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:22:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.72 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com 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 MItC4kb7qGt7; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:22:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C6A91294BE; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:22:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3500; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485246172; x=1486455772; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=+SAY4/ZEgaX1xdO9C48mcejplEte3pFf9aN2BydOih0=; b=W2xs2NrLOyCoLK0h+RePn2Ppoxi1SRAamhVfMdBvXv6b8o6IGkRfcp7d xNNnRI23kEEsFJZ+C3DkUqf7610vrtvhf5hg5q+9Wnu7NTsSa2mzPYN4O RhyvxVbcEAUcwPzP+130k97yIXkVSjGyXh9R89vS0FxYCP5WuSOB9PfAs g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BeBABPDodY/5ldJa1eGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgm9FAQEBAQEfYIEQg0yKCZFkkCKDHIIPgg2GPoFyPxgBAgEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?iKEIBBAmEGgYjaAEIBAo0AgQdEycEAYksrTSCJSuKMAEBAQEBAQEBAgEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBIIZLggUIgmKHTy6CMQWbTQEakVGBd4hchhuSdgEfODiBEBVKAYYognAGhEW?= =?us-ascii?q?BDQEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,277,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="202794767" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Jan 2017 08:22:50 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (xch-rtp-017.cisco.com [64.101.220.157]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0O8Mowm004644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:22:51 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-016.cisco.com (64.101.220.156) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 03:22:50 -0500 Received: from xch-rtp-016.cisco.com ([64.101.220.156]) by XCH-RTP-016.cisco.com ([64.101.220.156]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 03:22:49 -0500 From: "MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" To: Ron Bonica , "lime@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam.all@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam.all@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 Thread-Index: AQHSdhsMy6XJbjqnRfKoMW2LrCMAfw== Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:22:49 +0000 Message-ID: <775C68C0-930B-4778-BE80-A7C902DD94C6@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.143.25.186] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_775C68C0930B4778BE80A7C902DD94C6ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:22:54 -0000 --_000_775C68C0930B4778BE80A7C902DD94C6ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGksDQoNCkkgcmVhZCB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gSSBzdXBwb3J0IGl0Lg0KDQpUaGFua3MN Cg0KUmVnYXJkcw0KTWFsbGlrDQo= --_000_775C68C0930B4778BE80A7C902DD94C6ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiB4 bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3b3JkIiB4bWxuczptPSJo dHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEyL29tbWwiIHhtbG5zPSJo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVp dj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgiPg0KPG1l dGEgbmFtZT0iVGl0bGUiIGNvbnRlbnQ9IiI+DQo8bWV0YSBuYW1lPSJLZXl3b3JkcyIgY29udGVu dD0iIj4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRvciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTUg KGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8N CkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0 IDUgMyA1IDQgNiAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJ cGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8N CnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBjbTsN CgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWls eTpDYWxpYnJpO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9y aXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOiMwNTYzQzE7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQph OnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5 Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOiM5NTRGNzI7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpzcGFu LkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxNw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1jb21wb3NlOw0KCWZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJY29sb3I6d2luZG93dGV4dDt9DQpzcGFuLm1zb0lucw0KCXttc28t c3R5bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQtb25seTsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZToiIjsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29y YXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lOw0KCWNvbG9yOnRlYWw7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0 eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3Jk U2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo1OTUuMHB0IDg0Mi4wcHQ7DQoJbWFyZ2luOjcyLjBwdCA3Mi4wcHQg NzIuMHB0IDcyLjBwdDt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xO30N Ci0tPjwvc3R5bGU+DQo8L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBiZ2NvbG9yPSJ3aGl0ZSIgbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMi IGxpbms9IiMwNTYzQzEiIHZsaW5rPSIjOTU0RjcyIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0aW9u MSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdCI+ SGksPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNs YXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ij5JIHJlYWQgdGhy b3VnaCB0aGUgZHJhZnQuIEkgc3VwcG9ydCBpdC48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBj bGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdCI+PG86cD4mbmJz cDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQiPlRoYW5rczxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ij48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXpl OjExLjBwdCI+UmVnYXJkczxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ij5NYWxsaWs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== --_000_775C68C0930B4778BE80A7C902DD94C6ciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Jan 24 00:43:33 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B801294BE for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:43:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.721 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.721 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com 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 Yw8ZevPeZwRC for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:43:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF37129458 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:43:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=734; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485247409; x=1486457009; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=lKPhVYyXE6wfmX4j/kaleDHEB9JF1UvRQrHaW7hOjf0=; b=SPJF2lHNgAGevSNZuZuNfffmT9ZB2kE2yevjqjBmIPBMcKWswgc71oWY Ra9V8bJxWCAXHAjpLpRyvmqU2fXVXo0Nt0pafNe7aXobiBTOt7p7EnQ7L XHrUM8bq5DKLy1wyT66Osgp8HiUt9aX+wj8nMib7kpNZh5/DuTfeduS9A I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AXAQCnEodY/4YNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgzQBAQEBAR9ggQkHjVWSA5Uugg0fC4V4AoIMPxgBAgEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?iHQuEaQEBBQEBODQXBgEIEQQBAR8JLgsUCQkBBBMIiRIOnSmSJopbAQEBAQEBB?= =?us-ascii?q?AEBAQEBAQEBGwWGS4Rvii4Fm00BkWKBaBiFD4NNhhuSdgEfOIFIFTqGOXOGSIE?= =?us-ascii?q?NAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,277,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="374962474" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Jan 2017 08:43:29 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (xch-aln-016.cisco.com [173.36.7.26]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0O8hT16005256 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:43:29 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-020.cisco.com (173.37.102.30) by XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (173.36.7.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 02:43:28 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-020.cisco.com ([173.37.102.30]) by XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com ([173.37.102.30]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 02:43:28 -0600 From: "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" To: "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: RE: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 Thread-Index: AdJ2HemUZdvCJwtVSy6Mne2n5h55/g== Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:43:28 +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: [10.143.26.81] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:43:32 -0000 Have read this document and support WGLC adoption. Thanks Prasad -----Original Message----- From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:42 PM To: lime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam.all@ietf.org Subject: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 Folks, This message begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-lime-yang-conne= ctionless-oam-03. Please submit comments by February 3, 2017. = Ron _______________________________________________ Lime mailing list Lime@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime Thanks Prasad From nobody Tue Jan 24 01:07:43 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCF312949D for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 01:07:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com 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 G7RwWyX6VVaS for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 01:07:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0134.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB422129458 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 01:07:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=fYBBKw0kNoq3FjKVXjxLxXSr1bNt2tAJUbse5jcEV7U=; b=dRCdPw/bCvvva3WnYlszg5b3mSFWtgKsXZSZSUXKW4OQ8ear9f1WDl0mLUwRYl+4AZO9aZ+OxHxXpLTllX8O35D//ZNwVFv0BGpOVGmE4iREiKz4OGfuXmw7G+pLma7STy+6uYh+Cew1Nyb1u/P5+4OpeYddRrcTss1gk0FPeN4= Received: from CY1PR0501MB2075.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.3.25) by CY1PR0501MB2074.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.3.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.874.6; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:07:38 +0000 Received: from CY1PR0501MB2075.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.3.25]) by CY1PR0501MB2075.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.3.25]) with mapi id 15.01.0874.012; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:07:38 +0000 From: Sudhin Jacob To: "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: REG: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 Thread-Index: AdJ2ITwDz51ZAFNMROKK8oNv+ev6/g== Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:07:38 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=sjacob@juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.12] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b27401e7-82cf-4504-fdee-08d4443871c2 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:CY1PR0501MB2074; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR0501MB2074; 7:muLhUKf5xSAz4Znt4bs12ZaZV4a41V5k0/pG8BdPRC521FCULp0grywZcD1dWNDKJD9GhR0J421+jmAX+fdqWwAXKQaMpfyHRa6uouAvCSFVqt3CDPP3hyb1VTcp3/FNrnzKCzqaB8AC6TLhj0OBpnFarGcvxZiAAuOSt+13RMqF9OUvqwQaC6CU/5bvNkKC0zAN94e9Cs5IPZUmxCs6s1m++c+03Thh5p5VF+VRV9bQMn8sZSNTFtRC2BuVn/qy4onjoX8YtPzzP12LqqlouGhAu/ps5tDhsRQEFbPaQWEljpZvfP1ss6QBxDYkwMaXo8/FXM3Uo6yrCKh0bevcUjgZjOwMrSx30HQOFclPXAZfJAxfarYJbEX5LKLC8j+XHNl7YQPoREj7G6LVRCEclDd8dowzYv3gLQF4rLCKzcXpdi0cy6FyuD5U6IdOSWTUfc9H+e12m8H7rzA2zKvkVw== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(21748063052155); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:CY1PR0501MB2074; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR0501MB2074; x-forefront-prvs: 0197AFBD92 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39850400002)(39450400003)(39860400002)(39410400002)(39840400002)(53754006)(199003)(189002)(230783001)(5640700003)(2501003)(5660300001)(53936002)(97736004)(66066001)(2900100001)(450100001)(25786008)(3660700001)(6436002)(92566002)(122556002)(107886002)(189998001)(6506006)(8676002)(77096006)(8936002)(1730700003)(81166006)(38730400001)(81156014)(110136003)(54356999)(102836003)(6116002)(105586002)(68736007)(101416001)(3846002)(305945005)(2351001)(2906002)(106356001)(33656002)(99286003)(86362001)(7696004)(9686003)(6916009)(55016002)(6306002)(3280700002)(7736002)(50986999)(74316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0501MB2074; H:CY1PR0501MB2075.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CY1PR0501MB2075E5DF3C57AA388CBCB209C2750CY1PR0501MB2075_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Jan 2017 09:07:38.1672 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0501MB2074 Archived-At: Subject: [Lime] REG: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:07:43 -0000 --_000_CY1PR0501MB2075E5DF3C57AA388CBCB209C2750CY1PR0501MB2075_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, I support this draft. I see it is in good shape. Regards, Sudhin --_000_CY1PR0501MB2075E5DF3C57AA388CBCB209C2750CY1PR0501MB2075_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,
 
I support this draft. I see it is in good shape.
 
Regards,
Sudhin
 
 --_000_CY1PR0501MB2075E5DF3C57AA388CBCB209C2750CY1PR0501MB2075_-- From nobody Tue Jan 24 01:57:12 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819A4129582 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 01:57:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=sudhinjacob@rediffmail.com header.sender=sudhinjacob@rediffmail.com header.d=rediffmail.com 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 OYHB4GnhndZw for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 01:57:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from rediffmail.com (f4mail-235-222.rediffmail.com [202.137.235.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2241612949A for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 01:57:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15376 invoked by uid 510); 24 Jan 2017 09:56:59 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=redf; d=rediffmail.com; b=mpIKqexrn70WQ0s0Ux9xMqhSwzwhafwf6asVeGibxSzWaJ95AzjFpf1Tw1lgExpNJtD0R7U5I4O8K6UpOUPGz9BMnc28B3p213hn+NbzpPzyjTlusSihnB1Yj9SV0UevgmXFjeCllf05PbOvaGuVtz6zq6egbdfTnEDMWVkyOGY= ; x-m-msg: asd54ad564ad7aa6sd5as6d5; a6da7d6asas6dasd77; 5dad65ad5sd; X-OUT-VDRT-SpamState: 0\LEGIT X-OUT-VDRT-SpamScore: 0 X-OUT-VDRT-SpamCause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeelgedrhedugdduudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucdftffgfffkhffhpdfqfgfvfdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffkfggvfhsuffhtgesrgdtvdertddtjeenucfhrhhomhepfdhsuhguvggvphcughcughhgghdfuceoshhuughhihhnjhgrtghosgesrhgvughifhhfmhgrihhlrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepudduiedrudeljedrudekgedrudefnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhht X-Remote-IP: 116.197.184.13 X-REDF-OSEN: sudhinjacob@rediffmail.com Date: 24 Jan 2017 09:56:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20170124095659.15335.qmail@f4mail-235-222.rediffmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Received: from unknown 116.197.184.13 by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 24 Jan 2017 09:56:59 -0000 X-Senderscore: D=0&S=0 Sender: sudhinjacob@rediffmail.com From: "sudeep g ggg" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_344ac635e8ce9b19847fb499f0fa0cea" Archived-At: Subject: [Lime] =?utf-8?q?REG=3Adraft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03?= X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:57:10 -0000 --=_344ac635e8ce9b19847fb499f0fa0cea Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi All, I support this draft. I see it is in good shape. Regards, Sudhin --=_344ac635e8ce9b19847fb499f0fa0cea Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Hi All,

I support this draft. I see it is in good shape.

Regards,
Sudhin

--=_344ac635e8ce9b19847fb499f0fa0cea-- From nobody Tue Jan 24 15:38:21 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C99129587; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:38:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 c4pRvFx0DwiK; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:38:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1569129563; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0ONcFw2003072; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:38:15 GMT Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.250.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0ONc9Qj002995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:38:12 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Ron Bonica'" , , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:38:07 -0000 Message-ID: <01ea01d2769a$ee14fe00$ca3efa00$@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: AQJSzyBK/6xgK1hxCKL+ZH9ZsAIB8aBHlH0w Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22844.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.915-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--7.915-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: X4bcv0S75KldpLkh5p97g/v+//lqU1h6JgRcbv1OyK+WSyNgdonoDh/X WBLkU7futWuxKvia8BALxwEDmpwfROOnBr3Mmp5GMQFn2MESINEBmf/gD11vZLRWD4ydITYYui4 zrcCd5jS8Avv1k158PEdEik52WJn71dDZHbsJnLNc/msUC5wFQX5Lmbb/xUuaHzB6p8SFnxFaLB gc5OD1gOLU6iRp2zHXJMkL05Agwhd48YB5KfXbgsCMrUomCWc6pfVcx39Kq+7czkKO5k4APn88J 2DCeEZt9aAK/U6GfKjMbaBg/PQOubvhKf49TtYADB+ErBr0bAOscK/K2DlvjkFF7QZ35lZ3LqZd 1G/sK1kriEKQi78d2ERZVAyieX2hj2hRzH1UwuA5f9Xw/xqKXdivpTdmVCR2xEHRux+uk8hUW0/ J/LzLMJ8xG3WrGPL0OCIE+mUe8tzHFV2hZgXqf0OJbBb+mJnN/i1tttGDU1Y= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:38:20 -0000 Hi, I read through this document again and think it is ready for publication. Here are some minor things to ix along the way. Thanks, Adrian === You might sort out the line lengths. --- Abstract is missing a final period. --- Some of the references in sections 1 8 and 9 seem to be duplicated. --- The last sentence of section 2 presumably belongs with the first paragraph. --- The text in section 2 that defines the notation used in the trees that are found in this document is useful, but I suspect it of being generic. (It would be nice if this was in a separate document so that everyone can reference it, but that is not the job of these authors or this WG.) I did find several parts of the text confusing and I wondered whether: - you can can drop the statuses that are not used in this document (I think there are no deprecated or obsoleted objects) - add the other flags that are used (I see, "w" although I am surprised to find what is effective a write-only object so perhaps that is an error?) - give simple examples (because "x" and "-x" may be hard to distinguish) --- In 4 you have Under each MA, there can be two or more MEPs (Maintenance Association End Points). But your primary expansion of MEP in section 2.1 is different. --- Sections 1 and 2.1 use "RPC" the rest of the document uses "rpc" --- Section 4.4 has Please refer to Section 4 for the complete data hierarchy which is a bit odd given that we are in the middle of section 4. --- Not asking you to do it, but why after the whole of section 4, why are there no "fragments" in section 4.5? --- A number of description clauses need to begin with capital letters. --- loss-of-continuity refers to the receiving MEP's configured CC-V reception period. I cannot find where I can read the value of that. --- Any reason why sometimes leaf cc-transmit-interval { type Interval; description "Interval between echo requests"; } and sometimes leaf interval { type Interval; description "Interval between echo requests"; } --- Why is there a minimum packet-size of 64 octets? Why can't I send smaller CC and CV packets? --- Stray text "YANG module of OAM" right at the end of the module? --- 6.2 has MEPID and MEP-ID and MEP ID. --- 6.2 has In this document we propose to extend the range to 0 to 65535. s/propose to extend/extend/ --- 6.3 has "MAID" unexpanded. This is probably just the ID of the MA, but ... --- Section 7 has This section demonstrates the usability of the connection-oriented YANG OAM data model to various connection-oriented OAM technologies, e.g., TRILL and MPLS-TP. This should probably be This section demonstrates the applicability of the connection-oriented YANG OAM data model to TRILL and MPLS-TP. --- I think the affiliations and emails of the Contributors and Authors need to be double-checked. From nobody Tue Jan 24 18:22:19 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A8612960C; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:22:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.42 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 mwygrjrT1OMv; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:22:15 -0800 (PST) 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 DDC92129611; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:22:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CZL10712; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:22:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.210) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:22:10 +0000 Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.117]) by DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.210]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:22:01 +0800 From: wangzitao To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "'Ron Bonica'" , "lime@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 Thread-Index: AdJybvO/bRLWgKWzTfmpQHUffN61mAD6OgeAABKEY0A= Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:22:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <01ea01d2769a$ee14fe00$ca3efa00$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <01ea01d2769a$ee14fe00$ca3efa00$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.78.198] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020206.58880BD4.01AC, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.117, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: ea0dc161bada449ef86d10d8596f8808 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:22:17 -0000 VGhhbmsgQWRyaWFuIGZvciB0aGVzZSB2YWx1YWJsZSBjb21tZW50cywgcGxlYXNlIGZpbmQgbXkg cmVwbHkgaW5saW5lLg0KDQpCZXN0IFJlZ2FyZHMhDQotTWljaGFlbA0KDQotLS0tLdPKvP7Urbz+ LS0tLS0NCreivP7IyzogQWRyaWFuIEZhcnJlbCBbbWFpbHRvOmFkcmlhbkBvbGRkb2cuY28udWtd IA0Kt6LLzcqxvOQ6IDIwMTfE6jHUwjI1yNUgNzozOA0KytW8/sjLOiAnUm9uIEJvbmljYSc7IGxp bWVAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbGltZS15YW5nLW9hbS1tb2RlbC5hbGxAaWV0Zi5vcmcN Ctb3zOI6IFJFOiBbTGltZV0gV0dMQzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1saW1lLXlhbmctb2FtLW1vZGVsLTA4 DQoNCkhpLA0KDQpJIHJlYWQgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGFnYWluIGFuZCB0aGluayBp dCBpcyByZWFkeSBmb3IgcHVibGljYXRpb24uDQoNCkhlcmUgYXJlIHNvbWUgbWlub3IgdGhpbmdz IHRvIGl4IGFsb25nIHRoZSB3YXkuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCkFkcmlhbg0KPT09DQpZb3UgbWlnaHQg c29ydCBvdXQgdGhlIGxpbmUgbGVuZ3Rocy4NCltNaWNoYWVsXTogWWVzLCBJIGNhbiBmaXggaXQu DQoNCi0tLQ0KQWJzdHJhY3QgaXMgbWlzc2luZyBhIGZpbmFsIHBlcmlvZC4NCltNaWNoYWVsXTog VGhhbmtzLCBJIHdpbGwgZml4IGl0IGluIG5leHQgdmVyc2lvbi4NCi0tLQ0KU29tZSBvZiB0aGUg cmVmZXJlbmNlcyBpbiBzZWN0aW9ucyAxIDggYW5kIDkgc2VlbSB0byBiZSBkdXBsaWNhdGVkLg0K W01pY2hhZWxdOiBZZXMsIEkgd2lsbCBmaXggaXQuDQotLS0NClRoZSBsYXN0IHNlbnRlbmNlIG9m IHNlY3Rpb24gMiBwcmVzdW1hYmx5IGJlbG9uZ3Mgd2l0aCB0aGUgZmlyc3QgcGFyYWdyYXBoLg0K W01pY2hhZWxdOiBJbmRlZWQsIGl0IG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgZml4ZWQuDQotLS0NClRoZSB0ZXh0IGlu IHNlY3Rpb24gMiB0aGF0IGRlZmluZXMgdGhlIG5vdGF0aW9uIHVzZWQgaW4gdGhlIHRyZWVzIHRo YXQgYXJlIGZvdW5kIGluIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgdXNlZnVsLCBidXQgSSBzdXNwZWN0IGl0 IG9mIGJlaW5nIGdlbmVyaWMuDQooSXQgd291bGQgYmUgbmljZSBpZiB0aGlzIHdhcyBpbiBhIHNl cGFyYXRlIGRvY3VtZW50IHNvIHRoYXQgZXZlcnlvbmUgY2FuIHJlZmVyZW5jZSBpdCwgYnV0IHRo YXQgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBqb2Igb2YgdGhlc2UgYXV0aG9ycyBvciB0aGlzIFdHLikNCg0KSSBkaWQg ZmluZCBzZXZlcmFsIHBhcnRzIG9mIHRoZSB0ZXh0IGNvbmZ1c2luZyBhbmQgSSB3b25kZXJlZCB3 aGV0aGVyOg0KLSB5b3UgY2FuIGNhbiBkcm9wIHRoZSBzdGF0dXNlcyB0aGF0IGFyZSBub3QgdXNl ZCBpbiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50DQogIChJIHRoaW5rIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBubyBkZXByZWNhdGVkIG9y IG9ic29sZXRlZCBvYmplY3RzKQ0KW01pY2hhZWxdOiBZZXAsIHRoZSBkZXByZWNhdGVkL29ic29s ZXRlIHN0YXRlbWVudCBpcyBub3QgdXNlZC4gTW92aW5nIHRoaXMgZmxhZyBmcm9tIHRoZSBzZWN0 aW9uIG1ha2Ugc2Vuc2UgZm9yIG1lLg0KDQotIGFkZCB0aGUgb3RoZXIgZmxhZ3MgdGhhdCBhcmUg dXNlZCAoSSBzZWUsICJ3IiBhbHRob3VnaCBJIGFtIHN1cnByaXNlZA0KICB0byBmaW5kIHdoYXQg aXMgZWZmZWN0aXZlIGEgd3JpdGUtb25seSBvYmplY3Qgc28gcGVyaGFwcyB0aGF0IGlzIGFuDQog IGVycm9yPykNCltNaWNoYWVsXTogQWdyZWUuDQotIGdpdmUgc2ltcGxlIGV4YW1wbGVzIChiZWNh dXNlICJ4IiBhbmQgIi14IiBtYXkgYmUgaGFyZCB0byBkaXN0aW5ndWlzaCkNCltNaWNoYWVsXTog QWdyZWUuDQotLS0NCkluIDQgeW91IGhhdmUNCiAgIFVuZGVyIGVhY2ggTUEsIHRoZXJlIGNhbiBi ZSB0d28gb3IgbW9yZSBNRVBzIChNYWludGVuYW5jZSBBc3NvY2lhdGlvbg0KICAgRW5kIFBvaW50 cykuDQpCdXQgeW91ciBwcmltYXJ5IGV4cGFuc2lvbiBvZiBNRVAgaW4gc2VjdGlvbiAyLjEgaXMg ZGlmZmVyZW50Lg0KW01pY2hhZWxdOiBZZXMsIGl0IG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgZml4ZWQuDQotLS0NClNl Y3Rpb25zIDEgYW5kIDIuMSB1c2UgIlJQQyIgdGhlIHJlc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHVzZXMg InJwYyINCltNaWNoYWVsXTogWWVzLCBpdCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIHN5bmNocm9uaXplZC4gSSdkIGxp a2UgdG8gZml4IGl0Lg0KLS0tDQpTZWN0aW9uIDQuNCBoYXMNCiAgIFBsZWFzZSByZWZlciB0byBT ZWN0aW9uIDQgZm9yIHRoZSBjb21wbGV0ZQ0KICAgZGF0YSBoaWVyYXJjaHkNCndoaWNoIGlzIGEg Yml0IG9kZCBnaXZlbiB0aGF0IHdlIGFyZSBpbiB0aGUgbWlkZGxlIG9mIHNlY3Rpb24gNC4NCltN aWNoYWVsXTogWWVzLCBpdCBzZWVtcyBvZGQsIEkgdGhpbmsgaXQgY2FuIGJlIG1vZGlmaWVkIHRv ICJQbGVhc2UgcmVmZXIgdG8gU2VjdGlvbiA0LjUgZm9yIHRoZSBjb21wbGV0ZQ0KICAgZGF0YSBo aWVyYXJjaHkiLiAgDQotLS0NCk5vdCBhc2tpbmcgeW91IHRvIGRvIGl0LCBidXQgd2h5IGFmdGVy IHRoZSB3aG9sZSBvZiBzZWN0aW9uIDQsIHdoeSBhcmUgdGhlcmUgbm8gImZyYWdtZW50cyIgaW4g c2VjdGlvbiA0LjU/DQotLS0NCkEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIGNsYXVzZXMgbmVlZCB0 byBiZWdpbiB3aXRoIGNhcGl0YWwgbGV0dGVycy4NCltNaWNoYWVsXTpZb3UgYXJlIHJpZ2h0LCBJ IHdpbGwgZml4IGl0IGluIG5leHQgdmVyc2lvbi4NCi0tLQ0KbG9zcy1vZi1jb250aW51aXR5IHJl ZmVycyB0byB0aGUgcmVjZWl2aW5nIE1FUCdzIGNvbmZpZ3VyZWQgQ0MtViByZWNlcHRpb24gcGVy aW9kLiAgSSBjYW5ub3QgZmluZCB3aGVyZSBJIGNhbiByZWFkIHRoZSB2YWx1ZSBvZiB0aGF0Lg0K W01pY2hhZWxdOiBJJ2QgbGlrZSB0byBkaXNjdXNzIHdpdGggbXkgY29hdXRob3IgdG8gZGVjaWRl IHdoZXRoZXIgd2UgbmVlZCB0aGlzIGF0dHJpYnV0ZXMNCi0tLQ0KQW55IHJlYXNvbiB3aHkgc29t ZXRpbWVzDQoNCiAgICAgIGxlYWYgY2MtdHJhbnNtaXQtaW50ZXJ2YWwgew0KICAgICAgICB0eXBl IEludGVydmFsOw0KICAgICAgICBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbg0KICAgICAgICAgICJJbnRlcnZhbCBiZXR3 ZWVuIGVjaG8gcmVxdWVzdHMiOw0KICAgICAgfQ0KDQphbmQgc29tZXRpbWVzDQoNCiAgICAgIGxl YWYgaW50ZXJ2YWwgew0KICAgICAgICB0eXBlIEludGVydmFsOw0KICAgICAgICBkZXNjcmlwdGlv bg0KICAgICAgICAgICJJbnRlcnZhbCBiZXR3ZWVuIGVjaG8gcmVxdWVzdHMiOw0KICAgICAgfQ0K W01pY2hhZWxdOiBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gcHJldmlvdXMgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiwgZm9yIGNvbnRpbnVp dHkgY2hlY2ssIHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgbGl0dGxlIG9mIGRpZmZlcmVuY2Ugb24gc2FtZSB0ZXJtaW5v bG9neSBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZToNCmZvciBtcGxzLXRwLCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgdHJhbnNtaXQtaW50ZXJ2 YWwgYW5kIHJlY2VpdmUtaW50ZXJ2YWwsIHRoZXJlZm9yZSwgd2UgZGVmaW5lZCB0aGlzIGF0dHJp YnV0ZSBhcyBjYy10cmFuc21pdC1pbnRlcnZhbC4NCi0tLQ0KV2h5IGlzIHRoZXJlIGEgbWluaW11 bSBwYWNrZXQtc2l6ZSBvZiA2NCBvY3RldHM/DQpXaHkgY2FuJ3QgSSBzZW5kIHNtYWxsZXIgQ0Mg YW5kIENWIHBhY2tldHM/DQpbTWljaGFlbF06IEkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB5b3VyIGNvbmNlcm4sIGVz cGVjaWFsbHkgY29uc2lkZXIgZm9yIGZ1dHVyZSB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMsIHJlc3RyaWN0IHRoZSBt aW5pbXVtIHBhY2tldC1zaXplIGFzIDY0IG9jdGV0cyBzZWVtcyBub3QgZ29vZCBpZGVhLg0KSSB3 b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIGRpc2N1c3Mgd2l0aCBjb2F1dGhvciBhbmQgbWF5IGJlIGNoYW5nZSBpdCBp biBuZXh0IHZlcnNpb24uIA0KLS0tDQpTdHJheSB0ZXh0ICJZQU5HIG1vZHVsZSBvZiBPQU0iIHJp Z2h0IGF0IHRoZSBlbmQgb2YgdGhlIG1vZHVsZT8NCltNaWNoYWVsXTogeWVzLCBpdCBuZWVkIHRv IGJlIGZpeGVkLg0KLS0tDQo2LjIgaGFzIE1FUElEIGFuZCBNRVAtSUQgYW5kIE1FUCBJRC4NCltN aWNoYWVsXTogWWVzLCBpdCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIHN5bmNocm9uaXplZC4gDQotLS0NCjYuMiBoYXMN CiAgIEluIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2UgcHJvcG9zZSB0byBleHRlbmQgdGhlIHJhbmdlIHRvIDAg dG8NCiAgIDY1NTM1Lg0Kcy9wcm9wb3NlIHRvIGV4dGVuZC9leHRlbmQvDQpbTWljaGFlbF06IEFn cmVlLg0KLS0tDQo2LjMgaGFzICJNQUlEIiB1bmV4cGFuZGVkLiAgVGhpcyBpcyBwcm9iYWJseSBq dXN0IHRoZSBJRCBvZiB0aGUgTUEsIGJ1dCAuLi4NCltNaWNoYWVsXTogWWVzLCB5b3UgYXJlIHJp Z2h0LCBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gZml4IGl0Lg0KU2VjdGlvbiA3IGhhcw0KICAgVGhpcyBzZWN0 aW9uIGRlbW9uc3RyYXRlcyB0aGUgdXNhYmlsaXR5IG9mIHRoZSBjb25uZWN0aW9uLW9yaWVudGVk DQogICBZQU5HIE9BTSBkYXRhIG1vZGVsIHRvIHZhcmlvdXMgY29ubmVjdGlvbi1vcmllbnRlZCBP QU0gdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLA0KICAgZS5nLiwgVFJJTEwgYW5kIE1QTFMtVFAuDQpUaGlzIHNob3Vs ZCBwcm9iYWJseSBiZQ0KICAgVGhpcyBzZWN0aW9uIGRlbW9uc3RyYXRlcyB0aGUgYXBwbGljYWJp bGl0eSBvZiB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbi1vcmllbnRlZA0KICAgWUFORyBPQU0gZGF0YSBtb2RlbCB0 byBUUklMTCBhbmQgTVBMUy1UUC4NCltNaWNoYWVsXTogVGhpcyBzZWN0aW9uIGRlbW9uc3RyYXRl cyB0aGUgQ08gbW9kZWwncyBhcHBsaWNhYmlsaXR5LCBpdCBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgdGhlIG1ldGhvZCBv ZiBhdWdtZW50aW5nIHRoZSBDTyBtb2RlbCB0byBkZXJpdmVkIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgc3BlY2lmaWMg bW9kZWwuDQpUcmlsbCBhbmQgTVBMUy1UUCBhcmUganVzdCBzb21lIGV4YW1wbGVzLiANCi0tLQ0K SSB0aGluayB0aGUgYWZmaWxpYXRpb25zIGFuZCBlbWFpbHMgb2YgdGhlIENvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycyBh bmQgQXV0aG9ycyBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIGRvdWJsZS1jaGVja2VkLg0KW01pY2hhZWxdOiBBZ3JlZS4N Cg== From nobody Tue Jan 24 18:29:50 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3E212960D; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:29:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.419 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 sOcBJIPSbRHe; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:29:47 -0800 (PST) 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 3C8B2129609; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:29:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DFE22500; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:29:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:29:42 +0000 Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.117]) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.209]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:29:36 +0800 From: wangzitao To: =?gb2312?B?ucsgyNY=?= , "draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org" , "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 Thread-Index: AQHSdfL8bRLWgKWzTfmpQHUffN61mKFIeFrQ Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:29:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.78.198] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2AD7E83ADGGEMM506MBXchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090204.58880D98.00A5, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.117, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: f3771858a47f9110231a5c0794692c46 Archived-At: Cc: "rbonica@juniper.net" Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:29:49 -0000 --_000_E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2AD7E83ADGGEMM506MBXchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgR3VSb25nLA0KDQpUaGFua3MgZm9yIHlvdXIgY29tbWVudHMhIEl0IG1ha2Ugc2Vuc2UgZm9y IG1lLCBhIHByb3BlciB0eXBlIGNhbiByZWR1Y2UgdGhlIHJpc2sgb2YgbWFraW5nIG1pc3Rha2Vz Lg0KSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIGRpc2N1c3Mgd2l0aCBjb2F1dGhvciBhbmQgbWF5IGJlIGNoYW5n ZSBpdCBpbiBuZXh0IHZlcnNpb24uDQoNCkJlc3QgUmVnYXJkcyENCi1NaWNoYWVsDQoNCreivP7I yzogucsgyNYgW21haWx0bzpndXJvbmdfY21jY0BvdXRsb29rLmNvbV0NCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE3 xOox1MIyNMjVIDEyOjQwDQrK1bz+yMs6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbGltZS15YW5nLW9hbS1tb2RlbC5h bGxAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IGxpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCrOty806IHJib25pY2FAanVuaXBlci5uZXQNCtb3 zOI6IFJFOiBXR0xDOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWxpbWUteWFuZy1vYW0tbW9kZWwtMDgNCg0KDQpIaSBk ZWFyIGFsbCwNCg0KDQoNCkFmdGVyIHJlYWRpbmcgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCwgaGVyZSBhcmUgc29t ZSB0aW55IGNvbW1lbnRzLg0KDQoxKSAgICAgIEluIHBhZ2UgMjI6IFRoZSByYW5nZSBvZiBNRC1s ZXZlbCBpcyAwLi4yNTUsIGJ1dCB0aGUgdHlwZSBkZWZpbmVkIGhlcmUgaXMgdWludDMyLiBVaW50 OCBtYXkgYmUgYSBtb3JlIHJlYXNvbmFibGUgdHlwZS4NCg0KMikgICAgICBJbiBwYWdlIDM0OiBU aGUgcmFuZ2Ugb2YgcGFja2V0LXNpemUgaXMgNjQuLjEwMDAsIHRoZXJlZm9yZSwgSSB0aGluayB1 aW50MTYgbWF5IGJlIGEgbW9yZSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHR5cGUuDQoNCjMpICAgICAgSW4gcGFnZSAz Njogc2FtZSBhcyB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMgY29tbWVudC4NCg0KDQoNCkJlc2lkZXMsIEkgc3VwcG9y dCB0aGUgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb2YgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBhcyBhbiBSRkMuDQoNCg0KDQpHdVJv bmcNCg0KZ3Vyb25nX2NtY2NAb3V0bG9vay5jb208bWFpbHRvOmd1cm9uZ19jbWNjQG91dGxvb2su Y29tPg0KDQpndXJvbmdAY2hpbmFtb2JpbGUuY29tPG1haWx0bzpndXJvbmdAY2hpbmFtb2JpbGUu Y29tPg0KDQoNCg0KLS0tLS3Tyrz+1K28/i0tLS0tDQoNCreivP7IyzogUm9uIEJvbmljYSBbbWFp bHRvOnJib25pY2FAanVuaXBlci5uZXRdDQoNCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE3xOox1MIyMMjVIDA6MTQN Cg0KytW8/sjLOiBsaW1lQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpsaW1lQGlldGYub3JnPjsgZHJhZnQtaWV0 Zi1saW1lLXlhbmctb2FtLW1vZGVsLmFsbEBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1saW1l LXlhbmctb2FtLW1vZGVsLmFsbEBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCg0K1vfM4jogV0dMQzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1s aW1lLXlhbmctb2FtLW1vZGVsLTA4DQoNCg0KDQpGb2xrcywNCg0KDQoNClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBi ZWdpbnMgYSBXR0xDIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbGltZS15YW5nLW9hbS1tb2RlbC0wOC4gUGxlYXNl IHN1Ym1pdCBjb21tZW50cyBieSBGZWJydWFyeSAzLCAyMDE3Lg0KDQoNCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFJvbg0KDQoNCg0K --_000_E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2AD7E83ADGGEMM506MBXchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi GuRong,=

 = ;

Thanks for= your comments! It make sense for me, a proper type can reduce the risk of = making mistakes.

I would li= ke to discuss with coauthor and may be change it in next version.

 = ;

Best Regar= ds!

-Michael

 = ;

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8= =CB: =B9=CB =C8=D6 = [mailto:gurong_cmcc@outlook.com]
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2017=C4=EA1=D4=C224=C8=D5 12:40
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org; lime@ietf.org
=B3=AD=CB=CD: rbonica@juniper.net
=D6=F7=CC=E2: RE: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08

 

Hi dear all,

 

After reading this documen= t, here are some tiny comments.

1)    =   In page 22: The range of MD-level is 0..255, but the type defined he= re is uint32. Uint8 may be a more reasonable type.

2)    =   In page 34: The range of packet-size is 64..1000, therefore, I think= uint16 may be a more reasonable type.

3)    =   In page 36: same as the previous comment.

 

Besides, I support th= e publication of this document as an RFC.

 

GuRong

gurong_cmcc@outlook.com

gurong@chinamobile.com

 

-----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE-----

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]

=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC= =E4: 2017= =C4=EA1=D4= =C220=C8= =D5 0:14

=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: lime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org

=D6=F7=CC=E2: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08

 

Folks,

 

This message begins a WGLC= on draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08. Please submit comments by February 3= , 2017.

 

    &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ; Ron

 

 

--_000_E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2AD7E83ADGGEMM506MBXchi_-- From nobody Wed Jan 25 02:12:15 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65CD12985C; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:12:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 SUZmhGE0KFif; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:12:12 -0800 (PST) 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 F0EBB129842; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:12:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0PAC2Ae019312; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:12:02 GMT Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.250.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0PABwA3019253 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:12:00 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'wangzitao'" , "'Ron Bonica'" , , Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:11:56 -0000 Message-ID: <02a401d276f3$77b84060$6728c120$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AdJ280EYKdbWQvUeS+KxVe4f7/VzSQ== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22844.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--24.358-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--24.358-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: H0/uSqZo4D6nykMun0J1wvHkpkyUphL9Ud7Bjfo+5jQ5CCUkHUNu7qSZ V8xpDzhZsrkI/KGx8vAKRLt/1s9XbWm9EZ0V6jiDaqa/YVBLYUkITdx0fxCcBdOwk6TvElPUp7w 8lBHFpo8j9ieCZ7IcnosSL9QovDDczMLMZrH3XeP0hv/rD7WVZOiY+s2L3xQEEEa3bn/bcwiwv7 cq/6p3lEb5rFbSbHVK/AVTczXT78uLI5pTMqjebzEBZ9jBEiDRAZn/4A9db2S0Vg+MnSE2GLouM 63AneY0vAL79ZNefDxHRIpOdliZ+9XQ2R27CZyz+cLcTg72Fvz4uJ1REX4MHWxcaWaRBbCwQQ/s 9vEJJnenEV8M9iZlA6+Hd7B+w2tcqCNd72dlxcuzI1v7J4hECiHAogh2SU5Xu77GjTkTwiDGEfo tTZgUJQS7nljjkymVwJ791RsjtuAXwXUmM6vIadjDJsU1r62bgYy8y+HaPlZO447EfatP8XWCd6 QvVzbepD2/oONjde6hLzi65Nj7MpsYdIGP6PlZbQ9aoPSmWJEhotH7bEpEMqfnINz0/CVcMY+4O QNXcFG91PzpUv9d/1mfzDNjcCxqH5chC2o3feKt0sUUpHt26X0tCKdnhB58avU8OIEwowLUZxEA lFPo846HM5rqDwqtlExlQIQeRG0= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:12:13 -0000 Thanks Michael, That all looks good. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: wangzitao [mailto:wangzitao@huawei.com] > Sent: 25 January 2017 02:22 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Ron Bonica'; lime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam- > model.all@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 >=20 > Thank Adrian for these valuable comments, please find my reply inline. >=20 > Best Regards! > -Michael >=20 > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2017=C4=EA1=D4=C225=C8=D5 7:38 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'Ron Bonica'; lime@ietf.org; = draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam- > model.all@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: RE: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I read through this document again and think it is ready for = publication. >=20 > Here are some minor things to ix along the way. >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian > =3D=3D=3D > You might sort out the line lengths. > [Michael]: Yes, I can fix it. >=20 > --- > Abstract is missing a final period. > [Michael]: Thanks, I will fix it in next version. > --- > Some of the references in sections 1 8 and 9 seem to be duplicated. > [Michael]: Yes, I will fix it. > --- > The last sentence of section 2 presumably belongs with the first = paragraph. > [Michael]: Indeed, it need to be fixed. > --- > The text in section 2 that defines the notation used in the trees that = are found in > this document is useful, but I suspect it of being generic. > (It would be nice if this was in a separate document so that everyone = can > reference it, but that is not the job of these authors or this WG.) >=20 > I did find several parts of the text confusing and I wondered whether: > - you can can drop the statuses that are not used in this document > (I think there are no deprecated or obsoleted objects) > [Michael]: Yep, the deprecated/obsolete statement is not used. Moving = this flag > from the section make sense for me. >=20 > - add the other flags that are used (I see, "w" although I am = surprised > to find what is effective a write-only object so perhaps that is an > error?) > [Michael]: Agree. > - give simple examples (because "x" and "-x" may be hard to = distinguish) > [Michael]: Agree. > --- > In 4 you have > Under each MA, there can be two or more MEPs (Maintenance = Association > End Points). > But your primary expansion of MEP in section 2.1 is different. > [Michael]: Yes, it need to be fixed. > --- > Sections 1 and 2.1 use "RPC" the rest of the document uses "rpc" > [Michael]: Yes, it need to be synchronized. I'd like to fix it. > --- > Section 4.4 has > Please refer to Section 4 for the complete > data hierarchy > which is a bit odd given that we are in the middle of section 4. > [Michael]: Yes, it seems odd, I think it can be modified to "Please = refer to Section > 4.5 for the complete > data hierarchy". > --- > Not asking you to do it, but why after the whole of section 4, why are = there no > "fragments" in section 4.5? > --- > A number of description clauses need to begin with capital letters. > [Michael]:You are right, I will fix it in next version. > --- > loss-of-continuity refers to the receiving MEP's configured CC-V = reception period. > I cannot find where I can read the value of that. > [Michael]: I'd like to discuss with my coauthor to decide whether we = need this > attributes > --- > Any reason why sometimes >=20 > leaf cc-transmit-interval { > type Interval; > description > "Interval between echo requests"; > } >=20 > and sometimes >=20 > leaf interval { > type Interval; > description > "Interval between echo requests"; > } > [Michael]: according to previous discussion, for continuity check, = there is a little of > difference on same terminology For example: > for mpls-tp, there are transmit-interval and receive-interval, = therefore, we > defined this attribute as cc-transmit-interval. > --- > Why is there a minimum packet-size of 64 octets? > Why can't I send smaller CC and CV packets? > [Michael]: I agree with your concern, especially consider for future technologies, > restrict the minimum packet-size as 64 octets seems not good idea. > I would like to discuss with coauthor and may be change it in next = version. > --- > Stray text "YANG module of OAM" right at the end of the module? > [Michael]: yes, it need to be fixed. > --- > 6.2 has MEPID and MEP-ID and MEP ID. > [Michael]: Yes, it need to be synchronized. > --- > 6.2 has > In this document we propose to extend the range to 0 to > 65535. > s/propose to extend/extend/ > [Michael]: Agree. > --- > 6.3 has "MAID" unexpanded. This is probably just the ID of the MA, = but ... > [Michael]: Yes, you are right, I would like to fix it. > Section 7 has > This section demonstrates the usability of the connection-oriented > YANG OAM data model to various connection-oriented OAM = technologies, > e.g., TRILL and MPLS-TP. > This should probably be > This section demonstrates the applicability of the = connection-oriented > YANG OAM data model to TRILL and MPLS-TP. > [Michael]: This section demonstrates the CO model's applicability, it introduce the > method of augmenting the CO model to derived technology specific = model. > Trill and MPLS-TP are just some examples. > --- > I think the affiliations and emails of the Contributors and Authors = need to be > double-checked. > [Michael]: Agree. From nobody Wed Jan 25 03:01:44 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B505712989D; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:01:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 NgANHkna45nM; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:01:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from TELEDG002RM001.telecomitalia.it (teledg002rm001.telecomitalia.it [217.169.121.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E81D12986B; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:01:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local (10.14.252.27) by TELEDG002RM001.telecomitalia.it (10.19.3.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:01:37 +0100 Received: from TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local (10.14.252.27) by TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local (10.14.252.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:01:37 +0100 Received: from TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local ([fe80::2845:411e:c732:e844]) by TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local ([fe80::2845:411e:c732:e844%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:01:37 +0100 From: Fioccola Giuseppe To: Ron Bonica , "lime@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam.all@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 Thread-Index: AdJybpjwy6XJbjqnRfKoMW2LrCMAfwEf8A+g Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:01:37 +0000 Message-ID: <5f4dd1503dc54e999c4bd8c0f250e9f2@TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: it-IT X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.14.252.230] x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [Lime] R: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:01:42 -0000 Hi, I have read this document and support it. I also agree about adding reference for passive, active and hybrid performa= nce measurements (e.g. RFC7799). Thanks, Giuseppe -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di Ron Bonica Inviato: gioved=EC 19 gennaio 2017 17:12 A: lime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam.all@ietf.org Oggetto: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 Folks, This message begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-lime-yang-conne= ctionless-oam-03. Please submit comments by February 3, 2017. = Ron _______________________________________________ Lime mailing list Lime@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From nobody Wed Jan 25 04:40:02 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41AD1298AC; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:39:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 IZ_MjCYy9N8w; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:39:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FF551298A6; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:39:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0PCdstK025983; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:39:54 GMT Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.251.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0PCdb8o025881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:39:46 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Ron Bonica'" , , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:39:34 -0000 Message-ID: <02b801d27708$1f4c8d40$5de5a7c0$@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: AQKev1exqMPBJS0uGcnme0LmeO3v9Z+wkQFg Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22844.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.509-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--12.509-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: j4nUk6F+aLabfb08kvBgZnBRIrj8R47FQPCWRE0Lo8Ic5EMczyDwKoI7 s5f4WtvNWaxkNY6kd1HlomllWFZVc48sb4DSq8SmW7gz/Gbgpl5QCOsAlaxN7/vQxTXXJYgOgcd f0g02hygA8l7COv1ZticC9e3i9A6oJTtxVlaKYFu1PiMh4ZF39UGV2YNiPCWmehTPkBG4eNE6SI YaJ07sj8k1bji5CVdC2Bkd8/n352djQ5p2uqqTV2MdYzySsvg8E7JInT4wddqYGQ7Y8LLoS87K0 qZHa30+DI1w9JPi00gGSqpMXN0WPRHdVuZrE/dZ+cKX6yCQ13vfSJ1kqMcqwb/tumWFs8JCcy4s qUzwBjvDUNay+/kjcdVY7ZRjthD9YlldA0POS1KktLbIroZAo4tKGQsT1elSLAJDkgEjGUeOJmp FkiF2w0vABZWNaQzkS7j2I8Y+SPZL5MYokMFn1NxajlW+zwxCSf1uC2z6CgtBL//DKiVcznYLPB 8D2dJFQvHVDXLa4oKXT6QIqaHgFx86MpJTSkIRkmtbTcNpxYTh0NtY/EbaZQzvg1/q1MH2oEuX9 db74WscuXCFuT24ZuhuvmKfXuukmxizB1eTmsseRm5gmnpiFLxQa/SOKZBTp+cg3PT8JVyiUMGN nknwCtgdKuj8kZ/fzt10BB7QGfeh4UG61NObBZmug812qIbzGsd4UAEvFdVnmaATkeO0G+yVM+e G9WifhHJUcI47Ox7xTwx4UJIMcsDxbnxe/DuIlVHM/F6YkvSAfODDLypXmvQgoCjBjjk29Os/l7 x5zsG36h2hK5rvdpGTpe1iiCJqtD9qpBlNF8oLbigRnpKlKSPzRlrdFGDwqpaUXapaCZ/gVkiut Wr4/AftN05LziVcFbMJKcNunwmAcFXLnhRPWA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:40:00 -0000 Hi, I read this document as part of the WG last call. In my opinion the document is *almost* ready to move forward, but has some small issues that need to be resolved first. Thanks for the work, Adrian === The use of English could use some work. The RFC Editor will catch this, but there is a risk that they will break something, so if you have the chance to get someone to edit the document first, that would help. --- There are a number of nits reported at https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf -lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03.txt --- The datatracker is reporting "Submission Yang Validation returned warnings or errors." No idea about this, but sounds like something that should be fixed. --- Need to expand "OAM" in the Abstract. --- Abstract s/Based model/Base model/ --- I think the Introduction would benefit from a short paragraph referencing draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model and explaining the difference. --- Section 1 has tree citations of "[lime retrieval methods]". You need to sort this out. (I suspect idnits catches this) --- Section 2.2. See my comments on the equivalent section in draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model --- Section 3, etc. Probably best to use single quotes (') around names of data nodes etc. Thus, for example, At the top of the Model, there is an 'oper' container for session --- In 3.3 I can't make sense of Level is provided for scenarios where it might be possible to define layering relationship as it can be used to stitching fault at related OAM layers. It seems to me (from the example that follows) that you are not talking about layering of network technologies so much as concatenation of path segments each of which is at a different technology. Maybe rewrite the text as... 'Level' defines the relative technology level in a sequence of network portions, and is provided to allow correlation of faults in related OAM domains. Or maybe I am only guessing. --- 3.3 s/thesecond/the second/ --- 3.3 leaf level { type int32 { range "-1..1"; } description "Level"; } It's not important, but I did wonder whether you would be better defining "up", "same", and "down" rather than using an int32. --- A number of description clauses need to begin with capital letters. --- I am trying to understand how a test point location can be identified by a multicast group address. I think you might want to target some of the OAM tools at a multicast address (e.g., ping a mcast address) but I don't see this as the same as a text point location. Am I missing something? --- You define oam-counter32 but then a number of leaf nodes (such as session-count) are of type uint32. In fact, I don't see oam-counter32 used at all. --- grouping session-packet-statistics { description "Grouping for per session packet statistics"; container session-packet-statistics { description "Per session packet statistics."; leaf rx-packet-count { type uint32; description "Total received packet count."; } leaf tx-packet-count { type uint32; description "Total transmitted packet count."; } leaf rx-bad-packet { type uint32; description "Total received bad packet."; } leaf tx-packet-failed { type uint32; description "Total send packet failed."; } } } Please clarify whether this is "Total number of OAM packets..." If it is counting normal data packets, uint32 is not large enough. --- grouping session-path-verification-statistics { description "Grouping for per session path verification statistics"; container session-path-verification-statistics{ description "OAM per session path verification statistics."; leaf verified-count { type uint32; description "Total number of packets that went through a path as intended."; } leaf failed-count { type uint32; description "Total number of packets that went through an unintended path."; } } } Please clarify whether this is "Total number of OAM packets..." If it is counting normal data packets, uint32 is not large enough. --- Not sure why you need to define IP-Multicast-Group-Address since a mcast IP address surely looks a lot like an IP address for which types already exist. --- Quite a few places "IP" is presented as "Ip" --- container path-verification { description "Optional path verification related information."; leaf flow-info { type string; description "ACL name that refers to the flow, if any."; } uses session-path-verification-statistics; } Why "ACL name"? Why does this have anything to do with ACLs? (But if it does, you need to expand ACL.) --- Superfluous "YANG module of OAM" right at the end of the YANG module --- 5. CL model applicability Spell out "CL" or use actual model name. --- 6. Security Considerations TBD. I don't think that will be good enough :-) You can model on the text in draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model --- Section 8 The authors of this document would like to thank Greg Mirskey and others Greg spells it "Mirsky". The others wished to remain anonymous? --- It is possible that all your references are normative, but I doubt it. You should go through them and work out which provide information and which are required reading in order to process this document. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica > Sent: 19 January 2017 16:12 > To: lime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam.all@ietf.org > Subject: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 > > Folks, > > This message begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-lime-yang- > connectionless-oam-03. Please submit comments by February 3, 2017. > > Ron > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime From nobody Thu Jan 26 07:12:20 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EC412967B for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:12:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.058 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.058 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com 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 1KoLWJP-MT_O for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0126.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EF5512967A for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:12:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=bGkQr5RlRjJP123vMbHxi3CceFTjmkQ8XvMcQte/Xxc=; b=RxHBv/SzZHFNhl26vpv/m+ODA1r/fyYORq5t22fTedlhMKLCvlzjijRTTgnTNjbE7/7uxW0+i1aquYN2JlZ4OCrugLjC713/zwLqWHdThSY0zSj8OFLu+ARkDcw74Li3XUGn/PPUjvomvpqL0oq1LVMLn78QJWZjpAGOH40RPbI= Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.21) by BLUPR0501MB2050.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.874.6; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 15:12:14 +0000 Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.23.21]) by BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.23.21]) with mapi id 15.01.0874.015; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 15:12:14 +0000 From: Ron Bonica To: "lime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-00 Thread-Index: AdJ35HXyv5qOrM0hRDWwvLCCFS6u2A== Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 15:12:14 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rbonica@juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2b72e9f3-cc62-47bd-3458-08d445fdb5db x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2050; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR0501MB2050; 7:+5V8L8Mk6ThLV3hoNjOM5kYh7kdYLZisxo+4sUAt84IfYFzf4TheCIgDrk1oq+tZZkElwV/xwtbVM6nVeav55UdWcMczntJOzjY3Fqgkgiya7uzZz8bdFTNrPLYdQTS21Oe81Xh+3W8aWxrCBHH0+8kCYRSMXnlbphQjvCglyTrCWcwUntaPx6YlW2YkLG4HHCJinWFxRtGg1AwPdGG816hVbSlFKUG13SR9KY2BG666UbIXC21gb1lsUgwP6X23+6FXpA6wFbf8h1E8AjuYlEmBpRjX//euREUkebJt6QdWx6rgACW6hpmHYjeL34RmW5lU/DJ9ItxQCG9HWqAeUIBK4e7LgWrjQKy/YUT7Ldv/BsP9/oAZGh5VSFSLrMwO0+8hon/WBb0JdDrzfYCvvv5fWjczMnJaphOk+7bSVIJ7xhfUKlEzWkfvpq/P95D1ybq4I4/9zHmdENmLedI28Q== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(6072148); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2050; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2050; x-forefront-prvs: 019919A9E4 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39850400002)(39410400002)(189002)(199003)(558084003)(122556002)(101416001)(7696004)(2906002)(86362001)(450100001)(74316002)(53936002)(99286003)(55016002)(3660700001)(9686003)(105586002)(106356001)(102836003)(3846002)(6116002)(230783001)(33656002)(2351001)(3280700002)(6916009)(81166006)(5660300001)(2900100001)(68736007)(6506006)(50986999)(8676002)(81156014)(54356999)(77096006)(6436002)(8936002)(110136003)(66066001)(2501003)(1730700003)(107886002)(97736004)(38730400001)(7736002)(305945005)(92566002)(5640700003)(25786008)(189998001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2050; H:BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Jan 2017 15:12:14.5306 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0501MB2050 Archived-At: Subject: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-00 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 26 Jan 2017 15:12:19 -0000 Folks, This message begins a WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-= oam-methods-00. Please submit your comments by February 9, 2017. Ron From nobody Tue Jan 31 10:06:36 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D51A129524; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:35 -0800 (PST) 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 zOQBCerEyH07; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot0-x22e.google.com (mail-ot0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3BE2129474; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f9so271680771otd.1; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ry/BCTJNY0gKplTTnVExwqBaAsNvfB6wepMbm02Luxg=; b=UcVZGH0dgq7MWbTOqpd04nMv2BifX59eLrwY/BBWIi86gmcZEc+U7STeoyY6PQEhXo s+Gk3PgtN+hJgkvdeRhv/I1e6az6ufnK0hRn5+h2OM6lZyop5juxMU8CK1CeoX7kh5C4 RCjLXPyDVgKx+I7jQbysOb+ngiB/HqR9rE9XLFaw+b4Zc2z6xGO/xEGLgFG54AjPWUjb RJ1XHPrAKQAYuMEIWzvC+i69OiCY0DDWSnjF+DgeCCNeWbJ6qUUcDIWFu0zUwyQaXx46 N6mI27Tz8SarsJib87DXLDQ4krzkbdu33buiJqbUaKwHbVrz2MgHquEyBqTizTf4blkN bzwA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ry/BCTJNY0gKplTTnVExwqBaAsNvfB6wepMbm02Luxg=; b=LPOsJHtCaICmZms10w7t1vHy7FG/TA0znfr8KI1afGEHIsFQqznU2Ze8XgfymUIZvA vhVkMcFR3BNYGUpx2C44KAAFRIr7k7/biQ6a4B1nCWphqgLhi6cDJoR4JyI0ztHqdyQN 4ILmXuiBIqYb21frozwj6dcLmm1Hexdgeu6zfz/bpfIhEOWk6pZztjxZA+hqItlmW7C4 x3MWHIjGM5ehBQ6Q3/NQ6kUhrJ0PXzSzZsw32QuP42Lj0dJZnK3KpGF2qSWTx2bmRxbK KT36V3G9pvgQyamJk1z8FXCAuEqcog29SoctG/lgCXm9dlfJnWPCFqDvkcFSoEtZjxnC 2QQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLZ49/4JP/X+lZ7deTqLMXcMazZfaB1NmR8PWgz28lS3vk3S4eQ/uOpZj3EOgNW/7/RHWPf63M2CHKu1w== X-Received: by 10.157.43.55 with SMTP id o52mr15353890otb.206.1485885992977; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.1.103 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:32 -0800 Message-ID: To: Ron Bonica Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ef06ac9cdf5054767cad7 Archived-At: Cc: "lime@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model.all@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:06:35 -0000 --001a113ef06ac9cdf5054767cad7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear Authors, WG Chairs, et. al, please consider my comments as part of WGLC discussion. - Overview of the OAM Model - Why MEF-38 Service OAM Fault Management YANG Modules not only used as prototype but not even referenced? - "... for VPLS this can be per VPLS instance" Is this OAM model of service OAM of provided by the VPLS instance service or of IP/MPLS underlay that provides transport for the VPLS instance? If the former, then we have MEF-38. if the latter, then it is IP/MPLS network OAM, i.e. connectionless. - "... connectivity verification(loopback) ..." OAM method to verify proper connectivity between MEPs of the specified MA rarely, if any, supported by the Loopback command. In order to detect in mis-connection and in-defect and out-of-defect conditions, CV should operate as proactive OAM command, e.g. CCM in CFM/Y.1731 or BFD-based CV for MPLS-TP as described in RFC 6428. - "The generic YANG model defined here does not require explicit configuration of OAM entities prior to using any of the OAM tools." I consider configuration of a remote MEP to be absolute pre-requisite to using even Loopback or Linktrace commands. Similarly, configuration of MIPs may be required as well. - Is "base mode for" synonymous to "default values"? The mentioning that explicitly would be helpful. - 3.5 . Test Point Locations - "routing instance vrf name if required" YANG Data Model for MPLS-TP OAM does not require or even reference to VRF name - I don't see any reference to the above mentioned YANG Data Model for MPLS-TP OAM. - Nor I see substantive references to RFC 6428 - There's no operational information specific to operation of connectivity verification mechanism in container oper, but only ones related to operation of continuity check. How MEP reports its state in regard to mis-connection defect (in-defect or out-of-defect)? - tlv-address should not be used as tp-address but as MPLS-TP Identifiers per RFC 6370 and RFC 6428. - FEC is not address of a single Test Point but group of IP packets which are forwarded in the same manner, over the same path, and with the same forwarding treatment. - cos-id in grouping cos is of type uint8 though TC filed mentioned as example is only three bits long. How these are mapped? - output from traceroute allows only MEP response while in linktrace MIPs that belong to the same MA should respond with LTR. LSP Ping does the same. Nits: - [lime retrieval methods] - looks as meant to be reference but there's no a document it points to. - grouping cos still refers to EXP field in MPLS-TP even though the field has been renamed Traffic Class (TC) in 2009 by RFC 5462 - s/Ma name format/MA name format/ - s/Yang/YANG/ (several occasions of this) - in 4. 6 s/Augment/augment/ - I cannot support publication of this version of the document. Regards, Greg On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Ron Bonica wrote: > Folks, > > This message begins a WGLC on draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08. Please > submit comments by February 3, 2017. > > Ron > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime > --001a113ef06ac9cdf5054767cad7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Authors, WG Chairs, et. al,
please consider my co= mments as part of WGLC discussion.
  • Overview of the OAM Mo= del
    • Why MEF-38 Service OAM Fault Management YANG Modules no= t only used as prototype but not even referenced?
    • "... for VPL= S this can be per VPLS instance" Is this OAM model of service OAM of p= rovided by the VPLS instance service or of IP/MPLS underlay that provides t= ransport for the VPLS instance? If the former, then we have MEF-38. if the = latter, then it is IP/MPLS network OAM, i.e. connectionless.
    • "= ... connectivity verification(loopback) ..." OAM method to verify prop= er connectivity between MEPs of the specified MA rarely, if any, supported = by the Loopback command. In order to detect in mis-connection and in-defect= and out-of-defect conditions, CV should operate as proactive OAM command, = e.g. CCM in CFM/Y.1731 or BFD-based CV for MPLS-TP as described in RFC 6428= .
    • "The generic YANG model defined here does not require explic= it configuration of OAM entities prior to using any of the OAM tools."=
I consider configuration of a remote MEP to be absolut= e pre-requisite to using even Loopback or Linktrace commands. Similarly, co= nfiguration of MIPs may be required as well.
    • Is "base mode for" synonymous to "de= fault values"? The mentioning that explicitly would be helpful.
    • =C2=A03.5<= /a>. Test Point Locations
    • = I don't see any reference to the ab= ove mentioned YANG Data Model for MPLS-TP OAM.
    • Nor I see substantive= references to RFC 6428
    • There's no operational information speci= fic to operation of connectivity verification mechanism in container oper, = but only ones related to operation of continuity check. How MEP reports its= state in regard to mis-connection defect (in-defect or out-of-defect)?
    • tlv-address should not be used as tp-address but as MPLS-TP Identifiers= per RFC 6370 and RFC 6428.
    • <= span style=3D"font-size:13.3333px">FEC is not address of a single Test Poin= t but group=C2=A0of IP packets whi= ch are forwarded in the same manner, over the same path, and with the same = forwarding treatment.
    • cos-id in g= rouping cos is of type uint8 though TC filed mentioned as example is only t= hree bits long. How these are mapped?
    • output from traceroute allows only MEP response while in linktrace MIP= s that belong to the same MA should respond with LTR. LSP Ping does the sam= e.

Nits:
  • [lime retrieval methods] - looks as meant to be reference but there= 9;s no a document it points to.
  • grouping cos still refers to EXP fi= eld in MPLS-TP even though the field has been renamed Traffic Class (TC) in= 2009 by RFC 5462
  • s/Ma name format/MA name format/
  • s/Yang/Y= ANG/ (several occasions of this)
  • in 4. 6 s/Augment/augment/

    • I cannot support publication of this version of the doc= ument.

    Regards,
    Greg

    On Thu, Jan 19, 201= 7 at 8:13 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
    <= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Folks,

    This message begins a WGLC on draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08. Pleas= e submit comments by February 3, 2017.

    =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0Ron

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

    --001a113ef06ac9cdf5054767cad7-- From nobody Tue Jan 31 10:06:57 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3A6129513; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:52 -0800 (PST) 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 Bohq6tDh07oo; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot0-x22a.google.com (mail-ot0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD979129474; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id 73so271981008otj.0; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0OVsQhewjxl/d9z+toQZTkDoD21gMVFpvrpmJhfzWuA=; b=YbFGViV2YVRYUCn7feaVZbo6cxj9DU1yHCQ5nad6VVVqmODEziKmjxi8ojcu7UINps mp78WMKcWGeoMw9jiHqIZUU1NOt98mvbypwqMuApRtLivpedJ49PU+0pS5aIkC6nNpOf G1++dKHAccrqBtAg9jbY6JjeCvHon+wmj/mdaDdJ6GVm66FI0TmqY/qW1Rny8nigsmzx ZJyJnmdoYKAPK+g6DKhBZhJ9yPWYP71ebUR9rH8m8e4bRe2op9PKl6H1NtMwJVUvMmeb MsfhysY7ZnCBFwUEzYaFUiOP4HW1iSpEw9SKudT8+akjwQhSxeQu2ulsiiJsrRBX7Tqz atVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0OVsQhewjxl/d9z+toQZTkDoD21gMVFpvrpmJhfzWuA=; b=IXUqYXRxMclpUjDWWVOmu9QQNMZtjSCVIjjCiIitXXZfan17/DXYeol9puCLy3HXpq WfycIn8ZWqOQQK6m/YA2gnUDiykwzeb9qTmL4LP7YVtrfTxZiCs98txCoLNdQexbnfa+ C70j2qRf43jXlul9nXRplImrSAtWIaUuDws9JayfLHeUvOJA1AZgnQKqJpB1LnZMZ6tE QMbm3G3QugC6ymTecEonGlI+ffK+ov5AlLjAsTbtbsXbieXFENhP8fFhRiMrcL2R5XiW 8SYqT3zrhO6vwXzD1Ke11rEh2+1lVR9f2r4gOHVB3qH2bBlN/lqfSXsY9vagfogATcrI /crg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJnkAi4ZX90AhoWyDG0mOzXnvlX5VKV6mVpkEHtKJdvRB/QbBWg9fXoTcEQB2hCbl5XgHXBe/H1WsbjoA== X-Received: by 10.157.17.5 with SMTP id g5mr4520561ote.118.1485886000949; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.1.103 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:06:40 -0800 Message-ID: To: Ron Bonica Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145009e43749e054767cbb8 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam.all@ietf.org" , "lime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:06:52 -0000 --001a1145009e43749e054767cbb8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear Authors, LIME WG Chairs, et.al, please consider my comments as part of WG LC discussion. - 3.1 . TP Address - I think that this topic requires more discussion. In what case, which network technology developed at IETF MAC may identify test point? - FEC is the most common case among listed. In fact, FEC unlikely fits into this list if we understand it as group of IP packets which are forwarded in the same manner over the same path, and with the same forwarding treatment. In other words, we have the same destination, same next hop, egress interface and CoS marking (note that some of these parameters may be as wild card). - IP Address, whether v4 or v6, does not sufficiently define the Test Point and must be associated with the parameter that defines forwarding treatment of a test packet addressed to the Test Point, e.g. DSCP for IP or TC for MPLS. True, often CoS parameter is set by default but that doesn't exclude it from the list of parameters that define the Test Point - I don't know of a case when this is true "a pair of source, destination addresses, and interface (Useful for BFD)". Could you please elaborate, give an example? - "System-id to represent the device or node" Like in Segment Routing? Example, reference would be helpful. - 3.2 . Tools - "performance measurement" As I understand, model of performance measurement OAM is outside the scope of this document. - I think this section would be the proper place do discuss proactive and on-demand OAM tools, give examples of each and how they being used in network operations. - 3.3 . OAM-layers - "each layer has its own OAM protocols" - s/protocols/protocol/ - I think that that is not necessarily the case, e.g. BFD may be used in IP/MPLS underlay and L3VPN overlay. - "OAM-layers is referred to a list of upper layer, lower layer that are related to current test point. This allow users to easily navigate up and down to efficiently troubleshoot a connectivity issue at different layer." - Something is missing in the first sentence. - s/this allow/this allows/ - Connectionless network does not include connection as element of its architecture and thus there's no mis-connection defect. Perhaps you were referring to loss of continuity defect here. - I don't agree with the proposed use of OAM level. If we consider OAM of a service that traverses multiple administrative domains, then Service OAM must be at the same level regardless of domain. Service OAM would be the outmost top level. Each operator may enable OAM test points in its respective segment so that each of segment would be at the same OAM level, e.g. Link OAM at the very bottom with Segment OAM between Service and Link OAM levels. - 3.5 . Test Point Locations - The last sentence is hard to parse and it leaves impression of circular reference with the definition of Test Point Location Information definition in the previous section. - "... data model is made generic enough to allow active, passive and hybrid OAMs to do the retrieval" - This being mentioned in reference to Path Discovery Data and Continuity Check Data. I'd imagine that an OAM mechanism, would it be active, passive or hybrid, produces the data but the retrieval of data done using non-OAM protocol, e.g. RPC, gRPC or else. - 3.8 . OAM data hierarchy - I think that "oper" as name for the container that holds operational information is confusing. Could it be extended, more self-explanatory? - I there are more than two types of TP (IPv4 or IPv6), e.g. System-id, why container *oper* for continuity-check statistics holds only for IPv4 and IPv6 types of TP? - as-number-location may be part of tp-address, but as identifier of a Test Point? Could you please give an example. - I believe that connection-oriented-location as part of tp-address grouping is not correct. - As connectionless network does not use notion of connection, OAM in connectioless network does not include tools to conduct connectivity verification and to detect mis-connection defect. Hence there's no definition of in and out of mis-connection defect for connectionless networks. - I don't agree with the list of values the 'tp-address-type-value' leaf may take. As noted earlier, MAC unlikely to be used as address of a test point in connectionless network and so FEC identifier Nits: - cc - is missing from Terminology section - FEC is missing from Terminology section - [lime retrieval methods] appears as reference but has no real document it points to I don't support publication of this version. Regards, Greg - On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Ron Bonica wrote: > Folks, > > This message begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03. > Please submit comments by February 3, 2017. > > > Ron > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > Lime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime > --001a1145009e43749e054767cbb8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Dear Authors, LIME WG Chairs, et.al,
    please consider my comments as part of WG LC = discussion.
    • 3.1.  TP Address
      • I think that this topi= c requires more discussion. In what case, which network technology develope= d at IETF MAC may identify test point?
      • FEC is the most common case = among listed. In fact, FEC unlikely fits into this list if we understand it= as group of IP packets which are forwarded in the same manner over the sam= e path, and with the same forwarding treatment. In other words, we have the= same destination, same next hop, egress interface and CoS marking (note th= at some of these parameters may be as wild card).
      • IP Address, wheth= er v4 or v6, does not sufficiently define the Test Point and must be associ= ated with the parameter that defines forwarding treatment of a test packet = addressed to the Test Point, e.g. DSCP for IP or TC for MPLS. True, often C= oS parameter is set by default but that doesn't exclude it from the lis= t of parameters that define the Test Point
      • I don't know of a ca= se when this is true "a pair of source, destination addresses, and int= erface (Useful for BFD)". Could you please elaborate, give an example?=
      • "System-id to represent the device or node" Like in Segm= ent Routing? Example, reference would be helpful.
    • 3.2.  Too=
ls
      • "performance measurement" As I u= nderstand, model of performance measurement OAM is outside the scope of thi= s document.
      • I think this section would be the proper place do discu= ss proactive and on-demand OAM tools, give examples of each and how they be= ing used in network operations.
    • 3.3.  OAM-layers
      <=
/pre>
      • "each layer has its own OAM protocols"
          • =
        • s/protocols/protocol/
        • I think that that is not necessarily the = case, e.g. BFD may be used in IP/MPLS underlay and L3VPN overlay.
        =
      • "OAM-layers is referred to a list of upper layer, lower layer that= are related to current test point. This allow users to easily navigate up= and down to efficiently troubleshoot a connectivity issue at different lay= er."
        • Something is missing in the first sentence.
        • s= /this allow/this allows/
        • Connectionless network does not include co= nnection as element of its architecture and thus there's no mis-connect= ion defect. Perhaps you were referring to loss of continuity defect here.
      • I don't agree with the proposed use of OAM level. If we con= sider OAM of a service that traverses multiple administrative domains, then= Service OAM must be at the same level regardless of domain. Service OAM wo= uld be the outmost top level. Each operator may enable OAM test points in i= ts respective segment so that each of segment would be at the same OAM leve= l, e.g. Link OAM at the very bottom with Segment OAM between Service and Li= nk OAM levels.
    • 3.5.  Test Point Locations
      • The last sentence is hard to parse and it leaves impression of c= ircular reference with the definition of Test Point Location Information de= finition in the previous section.
    • "... data model is made= generic enough to allow active, passive and hybrid OAMs to do the retrieva= l"
      • This being mentioned in reference to Path Discovery Dat= a and Continuity Check Data. I'd imagine that an OAM mechanism, would i= t be active, passive or hybrid, produces the data but the retrieval of data= done using non-OAM protocol, e.g. RPC, gRPC or else.
    • 3.8.  OAM data hierarchy
      • I=C2=A0think that "oper" as name for the cont= ainer that holds operational information is confusing. Could it be extended= , more self-explanatory?
      • I there are more than two types of TP (IPv= 4 or IPv6), e.g. System-id, why container oper=C2=A0for continuity-c= heck statistics holds only for IPv4 and IPv6 types of TP?
      • as-number= -location may be part of tp-address, but as identifier of a Test Point? Cou= ld you please give an example.
      • I believe that connection-oriented-l= ocation as part of tp-address grouping is not correct.
      • As connectio= nless network does not use notion of connection, OAM in connectioless netwo= rk does not include tools to conduct connectivity verification and to detec= t mis-connection defect. Hence there's no definition of in and out of m= is-connection defect for connectionless networks.
      • I don't agree= with the list of values the 'tp-address-type-value' leaf may take.= As noted earlier, MAC unlikely to be used as address of a test point in co= nnectionless network and so FEC identifier

    Nits:
    • cc - is missing from Terminology section
    • =C2=A0FEC is missing from Terminology section
    • [lime retri= eval methods] appears as reference but has no real document it points to
    I don't support publication of this version.

    =
    Regards,
    Greg

    <= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
    On Thu, Jan 19, 20= 17 at 8:12 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
    =
    Folks,

    This message begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-lime-yang-= connectionless-oam-03. Please submit comments by February 3, 2017.

    =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Ron

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

    --001a1145009e43749e054767cbb8--