Subject: Re: [Time] Comments on draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:28:22 +0000

Hi,
发件人: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) [mailto:[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2014年6月30日 9:24
收件人: Qin Wu
主题: RE: Comments on draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam

Hi Qin

I went through, why are we combining architecture and problem statement to the same document. I think best way forward is to get the problem very clearly defined and have architecture as a separate document. The reason is some may (e.g. my self) will agree with the problem but not necessarily with the architecture.

[Qin]: Thanks for general comments on draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam. Yes, We did plan to split the architecture part from problem statement draft at the next step,. But not now.
In this version, we put architecture and problem statement together in the same draft.

The following from section 4, is kind of a time bomb. This sounds more like a layer violation. Which probable in my opinion needed to be adjusted

   o  Any two Network Elements that exchange OAM information do not need
      to be at the same layer.

[Qin]:Yes, this sentence is a little bit misleading. What we are trying to say

a.       Any network element can use different technologies and
      corresponding OAM on the same layer

b. or Any two network element may provide service delivery at different

      layer

We will make this clear in the ps draft.