Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-01, draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-02, draft-kern-ccamp-rsvp-te-sdh-otn-oam-ext-02

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:29:01 -0400

These all seem to be cases built on the *base protocol spec*
raft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-03

As is this is not a unified OAM framework for the following reasons.

  1.  The concept of MD level is applied only to Ethernet.

  2.  If the IEEE/MEF concept of MD level is extended, the 8K ID space
      and simple 8 levels may not map directly.  It might be better to
      have a TP-MD that identifies a layer and then within an Ethernet
      sublayer idenfifies a 3-bit MD level and 13 bit MD ID.

      Ethernet in PW in Ethernet in PW in ... presents an interesting
      case.

  3.  Some of the requirements (PM, LM, DM, lock, loopback) are not
      covered by some of these three drafts.  Each draft should at the
      front indicate which of these requirements are addressed and
      which are omitted.

      This also allows a later draft to address the remaining
      requirements (such as a better way of doing loopback for LSP
      than TTL addressing).

Curtis

---

From: Attila Takacs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:57:04 +0100

Hi Curtis, 

> As is this is not a unified OAM framework for the following reasons.

It is a unified OAM *configuration* framework. It provides the procedures and placeholders for OAM entity/function configuration via RSVP-TE. 

>       Ethernet in PW in Ethernet in PW in ... presents an interesting

Actual details are kept technology specific, since OAM solutions evolve independently for each of the technologies. 

>       requirements (such as a better way of doing loopback for LSP

Ok, agreed.

> Curtis

Thanks,
Attila

> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>