IETF 96 IETF 96, Berlin, Germany, July 17-22, 2016 LIME Layer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment Thursday Morning session I 10:00-12:30 Room: Tiergarten [Meeting is starting. Carlos is chairing the meeting, Ron is not here this time.] Note well applies. Agenda: - Administrative - Chairs . https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lime/charter/ [Carlos giving an overview of WG status.] WG has a wiki that contains information on applicability and usability of LIME models. Please take a look. - Data Models: . draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-07 ÒGeneric YANG Data Model for Connection Oriented Operations, Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocolsÓ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model/ Review WGLC Comments and pending issues. [presentation] Michael Wang presenting. Multiple iterations of changes based on 2 interim meetings and multiple private discussions. [discussion] Greg Mirsky/Ericsson: Why do we have different grouping for MEG-ID and MA-ID? MEG-ID is a different type of MA-ID according to Y.1731. Michael: You can choose whether to follow MPLS-TP terminology and define name format according to MPLS-TP, but if you choose to follow TRILL format, you can set it to TRILL's type. Greg: If you want to keep MPLS-TP as a separate technology, there is already a draft for MPLS-TP OAM, and we should augment it by that model and not redo it in this WG. Greg: Please take a look at that document and see how it could be augmented. There is no need to replicate MPLS-TP OAM constructs in LIME. Carlos: Are you saying that MPLS-TP draft and YANG model is referenced by using these? Greg: No, I suggest the opposite - this work references MPLS-TP work. Why is there a need to reference MPLS-TP specific construct here? Carlos: LIME approach is that various consumers can use this model and not the technology specific ones directly. Greg: It uses MPLS-TP specific constructs rather than opaque identifiers, it provides constructs that are technology specific rather that agnostic. Carlos: MPLS-TP needs to augment these non-technology specific constructs and not the other way around. Greg: This work looks that this is technology specific. Carlos: please work to remove technology specifics. Reshad Rahman: Greg - I think your comment also applies to other technology specific areas, not only to MPLS-TP? Benoit Claise: I wonder how would you work with the topology? We have several topology drafts in I2RS. In the topology draft there is a notion of node id. How do we relate the node id in the topology to what is being discussed in OAM model? Michael: Here we use connection-oriented technology approach that has such mapping. For connectionless we need to work on finding such a mechanism. Carlos: There is one action regarding the addressing - do an editing session with YANG doctors, that would be really useful. Carlos: The comments related to addresses, to topology - we need to spin a new version. . draft-kumar-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03 ÒGeneric YANG Data Model for Connection Less Operations, Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocolsÓ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-lime-yang-connectionless-oam/ Updates targeting adoption. [presentation] Qin Wu presenting. Many changes and updates based on two interim meetings and individual reviews. [discussion] Greg Mirsky/Ericsson: If authors would like performance monitoring as a separate model, then I would suggest it to be characterized as fault management. It also does not need to mention OWAMP and TWAMP. Qin: We want to have a more generic model and not certain whether we should change a name. Greg: I would encourage to separate the models. It would make easier to manage them. Otherwise we will have to talk about technology specific PM models too. Qin: We need to have a generic name. Greg: It is a choice by authors, I cannot force anything, just suggesting. Carlos: Can you discuss the relationship of the document and other technology specific ones? BFD relationship in particular? Qin: We clarified in this document some details on BFD interaction. We will update the wiki applicability page too. Carlos: BFD is meeting tomorrow. Reshad and Greg, what is the status of that document within BFD WG? Reshad: There have been changes in routing model regarding instances. The remaining part is the technologies that BFD depends on. You do not want to redefine the way MPLS tunnels are configured, we should be reusing, augmenting, and not redoing it from beginning. Greg: BFD model covers single and multihop and LSP. Micro-BFD is there too. Work on LSP ping YANG model will be reactivated. It will be discussed in PCE session. Carlos: It was a bit stale previously. Greg: Based on request from MPLS WG chairs the work will be restarted. Carlos with WG hat on: Time is pressing to find a real time editing session on these more intricate issues. Greg: We should make effort to make it. Interim meetings were very successful. We could schedule some interim sessions. Frank Brockners: The document is good to adopt. Can you split the document into methods to retrieve the data from the model itself, this would allow for other data retrieval mechanisms and not to overload the RPCs. Carlos: It is a WG decision. There are advantages and disadvantages of such approach. We need to agree on the right granularity. This might be a question to YANG doctors. Benoit: Are those two separate models at the moment? Qin: Two models in the same draft. Benoit: Maybe it is a good step to separate it then. You may want to update the model only. From the YANG perspective we could do it. No strong opinion though. Carlos: Please take to the list, summarize the pros and cons of having the same model, and discuss there. Benoit: How do you connect with topology? Qin: We augment the network topology model. Benoit: Is that a model from I2RS? Qin: Yes. For connectionless we have more restrictions to model the topology. Deepak via jabber: As an author I am happy to break the draft into two, we will wait for the decision from the WG. Carlos: In the context of the document, we have been working for a while on this document. This is still an individual document, we have marked as a candidate for adoption. Before taking that question to the list, does anyone have any concerns with it? This is within our charter. Are there any concerns for this document to be a base for LIME connection less model? Greg Mirsky: The number of times we talk about relationship between generic and specific models is a very important question. Once we solve it we will have a very good basis for the future work. Carlos: Could you clarify what do you mean with solve? Greg: As a coauthor of MPLS-TP OAM document, I still see there are things that there are things that we need to address - namespaces in particular. I havenÕt looked at the latest version of applicability document though. Will look at it and discuss. - Discussion - All - Next Steps - Chairs Carlos: Last topic that we have today is on the relationship on the common model and the technology specific ones. Some technologies are more advanced - BFD, TRILL, MPLS. Some are not even talking about it yet. Carlos: Wiki contains that information. You can also edit it. Benoit: TWAMP is IP only, right? So that means connectionless? This is an open document. Benoit: Carlos, you were asking on sending the document to the YANG doctors for review. What is your conclusion? Carlos: We need to solve the generalization of the addresses first. This is the only major aspect with the documents. After that I need to talk to Ron, and we could send it to YANG doctors, and then issue WG LC on the documents. Carlos: Meeting ended.