Subject: [edu-team] EDU tutorial on OAM

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:13:27 +0200

Hi,

As promised, here are my comments concerning the OAM tutorial in Paris: 

General:

- the EDU team focused in the past on stable and well-established
technologies. The topics of this tutorial seems to be a departure from
this policy, as OAM in the IETF although of broad interest is very much
work-in-progress, and subject of hot debates in WGs like TRILL. I
personally agree with this change in policy, just want to make sure that
it represents a trend not an accident.

Content: 
- The Summary of IETF Management Standards is very wrong - makes the
statement about covering (A) and (M) in OAM, brings back the confusion
that we tried to dissipate with RFC 6291. It is clear that the author
misses the architectural perspective of how OAM protocols ('horizontal',
device-to-device) relate to management protocols ('vertical',
operator-to-device or management_application-to-device) 
- OAM Best Practices to new Protocol Designers - misses the relation
with SNMP, ignores NETCONF / these are complementary toolkit elements
from the operators perspective
- The tutorial did not relate with the OAM work in ITU-T and IEEE 802.1
- just mentioning these as terminology is not enough, operators would
like to understand how the different OAM layers and protocols defined by
different SDOs work together, common functionality and methodology,
functions specific to each

A couple of missed details: 
- IPPM functionality also covers connectivity
- MPLS-TP OAM functionality also includes Lock Reporting

Regards,

Dan

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:25:48 +0100

I can't judge Dan's comments; he's the expert, but one obvious
conclusion is that it's *essential* that tutorials are ready for
expert review several weeks in advance. I think EDU needs to set
some firm deadlines to achieve this.

Regards
   Brian

On 2012-04-24 11:13, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> technologies. The topics of this tutoerial seems to be a departure from
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team
>

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:50:03 +0200

Hi Brian,

To be fair to Tissa, he sent the slides to me 10 days before the IETF 
and I passed them on to the edu-team. I just forgot to include Dan on my 
mail. That's why he didn't get to review the slides prior to the 
meeting. We'll make sure the material gets updated before the next IETF 
meeting.

Regards,
Mirjam

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:54:13 +0200

Hi Mirjam, 

Ten days would have been very stretched for me before Paris, and so it
will remain for any AD in function I guess if these are the ten days
before an IETF meeting. I would rather go for a 3-4 weeks review
deadline prior to the date of the tutorial. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirjam Kuehne [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:50 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]; Ron Bonica; EDU Team
> Subject: Re: [edu-team] EDU tutorial on OAM
> 
> Hi Brian,
>

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:02:29 +0200

Thanks for your feedback, Dan. We'll pass it on to Tissa, so he can 
update the slides before the next meeting.

About your first point, I remember Russ suggested to prepare a tutorial 
on OAM. We discussed it in the edu-team, and felt this would be useful.
If this means, we're changing the focus of the tutorials we provide, I'm 
not sure. That's something we'll have to discuss. But if people feel 
that topics like this (that are still work in progress) are a useful 
addition, I don't think we're opposed to providing tutorials on that.

Kind Regards,
Mirjam

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:06:15 +0200

Hi Dan,

I understand, and we're definitely striving for a longer review period. 
But unfortunately it doesn't always work.

Mirjam

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:13:33 -0700

> it represents a trend not an accident.

I think it's good to have an overview of issues and pros and cons, on
areas that are in flux. It should be made clear that this stuff is not
clearcut right/wrong, good/bad, etc. and that the presenter should
attempt to give insight into the controversies and arguments on all
sides.

Allowing people to get acquainted with areas in which there are hot
ongoing debate is valuable.  And it's also valuable for the people who
have been involved in the debate, to take a deep breath and summarize
what the debate is about and what the various arguments are,
periodically.

Radia

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:15:07 +0200

> From: Radia Perlman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 2:14 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: EDU Team; [email-masked]; Ron Bonica

[[DR]] I support this approach. 

Regards,

Dan