Agree with Greg. I have particular concern about this statement in the draft:
All implementations that follow the YANG framework presented in this document MUST implement the generic YANG model presented here. This seems to stipulate a requirement that neither YANG as a language nor any existing technology requires, except maybe CFM itself. Where is this stipulation coming from and why is it a MUST? > On Aug 24, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Varma, Eve L (Eve) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I concur with Greg’s concerns. > > Best regards, > Eve > > From: Lime [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 12:33 PM > To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Lime] Call for Adoption: draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-06 > > I do not support adoption of this document as WG item. > > I believe that until Applicability of Generic YANG Data Model for layer > Independent OAM Management demonstrates that the proposed model indeed is > common among OAM technologies developed at IETF, e.g. IP, IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP, > and TRILL, beyond just YANG customization mechanisms adopting this draft as > WG item is premature. And the applicability document has not demonstrated > that yet as you can see from the attached comments to the Applicability of > the draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model and couple more generic notes: > Operations, Administration and Maintenance address Fault Management and > Performance Monitoring of the FCAPS. If the scope of the document does not > include both then I suggest not to refer to is as OAM but perhaps On-demand > Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification, i.e. ping and traceroute, > Common YANG model; > section 4 is more about general YANG extensibility than of the proposed OAM > YANG data model; > IP/MPLS OAM not being separated from MPLS-TP OAM; > Performance Monitoring arbitrary being left outside the scope for some > technologies, e.g. Ethernet; > often Service OAM being presented as Transport OAM, e.g. VPLS, NVO3. > > > Regards, > Greg > > From: Lime [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 1:12 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [Lime] Call for Adoption: draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-06 > > LIME, > > This email starts a two-week poll on adopting > draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-06 [1] as a LIME working group item. > > Please send comments to the list and state if you support adoption or not (in > the later case, please also state the reasons). > > This poll runs until ** August 24th, 2015 **. > > We are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, to > ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see > RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > *If you are listed as a document author or contributor*, please respond to > this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > > The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each > author and contributor. > > If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly > respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in > conformance with IETF rules. > > Thank you, > > Ron Bonica / Carlos Pignataro > LIME co-chairs > > [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model/ > <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model/> > > _______________________________________________ > Lime mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime> Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
