Subject: [Bier] Call for adoption: draft-mirsky-bier-oam-requirements-00

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:32:23 -0700

Please and respond with or without support for adoption as a WG item.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-bier-oam-requirements/

Thanks,
Chairs

---

From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:48:36 +0000

Support.

Thanks,
Nagendra

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Reply-To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 4:32 PM
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [Bier] Call for adoption: draft-mirsky-bier-oam-requirements-00

Thanks,
Chairs

---

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:53:37 +0000

support as co-author

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: BIER [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 1:32 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Bier] Call for adoption: draft-mirsky-bier-oam-requirements-00

Thanks,
Chairs

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:58:59 +0000

Yes/support

Regards,
Jeff
From: BIER [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 1:32 PM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [Bier] Call for adoption: draft-mirsky-bier-oam-requirements-00

Thanks,
Chairs
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

---

From: Santosh P K <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 05:06:49 +0000

Support.

From: BIER [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:02 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Bier] Call for adoption: draft-mirsky-bier-oam-requirements-00

Thanks,
Chairs

---

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:41:29 -0700

+1

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]> wrote:

> [email-masked]

---

From: "Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 07:31:11 +0000

Support

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 27, 2015, at 5:32 AM, Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Thanks,
Chairs

---

From: "IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 07:31:14 +0000

Support.

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Aug 2015, at 22:32, Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Thanks,
Chairs

---

From: Mach Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:08:00 +0000

Support as co-author.

Best regards,
Mach

From: BIER [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:32 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Bier] Call for adoption: draft-mirsky-bier-oam-requirements-00

Thanks,
Chairs

---

From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:42:52 +0000

Support.

From: BIER <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> on behalf of Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>

Thanks,
Chairs

---

From: "Mahesh Sivakumar (masivaku)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:55:03 +0000

Support.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Please and respond with or without support for adoption as a WG item.

Thanks,
Chairs

---

From: David Allan I <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 21:32:58 +0000

Support
D

Thanks,
Chairs

---

From: Nobo Akiya <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 09:51:44 +0900

Support.

Thanks,
Nobo

---

From: Eric C Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:37:20 -0400

> Please and respond with or without support for adoption as a WG item.

Before this draft is adopted, I think it would be prudent to make a few 
clarifications.

1. The draft should make it clear that the intention is that the WG must 
produce a set of "OAM protocols, methods, and tools" that, taken 
together, satisfy the requirements.  That is, the WG is not expected to 
automatically reject a proposal just because that proposal by itself 
does not satisfy all the requirements.

2. The draft should make it clear that the listed set of requirements is 
not necessarily exhaustive.  That is, there might be an OAM protocol or 
tool that is useful, but not strictly needed to satisfy the requirements 
of this draft.  The WG is not expected to automatically reject such 
protocols or tools.

3. The draft says:

      "BIER OAM" is used in this document interchangeably
       with "set of OAM protocols, methods, and tools"

It then goes on to use terms like "BIER OAM session", where the above 
interchange can't really be made.  Perhaps requirements 2, for exmaple, 
should be rephrased as something like "Insofar as BIER OAM makes use of 
sessions, it MUST be possible to initialize the sessions from any BFR 
..."  Also, I'm pretty sure it is not intended that every OAM tool 
require a session, but requirements 2 and 3, as written might be 
interpreted as ruling out non-session-oriented tools.

4. With regard to the term "proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring" in 
requirement 4, I'm not quite sure whether this means "proactive 
monitoring as well as on-demand monitoring", or whether means that all 
monitoring techniques must be "proactive and on-demand".  (This might be 
due to my lack of familiarity with OAM terminology, but it would be good 
to remove the ambiguity.)

5. With regard to requirement 7, I'm not quite sure what the meaning of 
"bidirectional" really is in this context, given that BIER does not set 
up bidirectional paths.  BTW, I believe it should say "out-of-band" 
where it says "out-of-bound"

6. With regard to requirement 14, I'm not sure what is meant by "BIER 
OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of a BIER layer".  Does 
"survivability" mean "link protection" and/or "node protection"?  Or 
something else?  These protection techniques generally use procedures 
that will tunnel data packets around the failures, but those procedures 
are not part of the OAM, so I'm a little confused by this requirement.

---

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:18:04 +0000

Hi Eric,
greatly appreciate your thorough review and very helpful comments. Will work on them and will respond with proposed changes.

	Regards,
		Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: BIER [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric C Rosen
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 7:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Bier] Call for adoption: draft-mirsky-bier-oam-requirements-00

> Please and respond with or without support for adoption as a WG item.

Before this draft is adopted, I think it would be prudent to make a few clarifications.

1. The draft should make it clear that the intention is that the WG must produce a set of "OAM protocols, methods, and tools" that, taken together, satisfy the requirements.  That is, the WG is not expected to automatically reject a proposal just because that proposal by itself does not satisfy all the requirements.

2. The draft should make it clear that the listed set of requirements is not necessarily exhaustive.  That is, there might be an OAM protocol or tool that is useful, but not strictly needed to satisfy the requirements of this draft.  The WG is not expected to automatically reject such protocols or tools.

3. The draft says:

It then goes on to use terms like "BIER OAM session", where the above interchange can't really be made.  Perhaps requirements 2, for exmaple, should be rephrased as something like "Insofar as BIER OAM makes use of sessions, it MUST be possible to initialize the sessions from any BFR ..."  Also, I'm pretty sure it is not intended that every OAM tool require a session, but requirements 2 and 3, as written might be interpreted as ruling out non-session-oriented tools.

4. With regard to the term "proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring" in requirement 4, I'm not quite sure whether this means "proactive monitoring as well as on-demand monitoring", or whether means that all monitoring techniques must be "proactive and on-demand".  (This might be due to my lack of familiarity with OAM terminology, but it would be good to remove the ambiguity.)

5. With regard to requirement 7, I'm not quite sure what the meaning of "bidirectional" really is in this context, given that BIER does not set up bidirectional paths.  BTW, I believe it should say "out-of-band" 
where it says "out-of-bound"

6. With regard to requirement 14, I'm not sure what is meant by "BIER OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of a BIER layer".  Does "survivability" mean "link protection" and/or "node protection"?  Or something else?  These protection techniques generally use procedures that will tunnel data packets around the failures, but those procedures are not part of the OAM, so I'm a little confused by this requirement.