Re: I-D Action:draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements-02.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi Tom,


> Yes, I find this version clearer.

Good. Thanks.

> I was struck by two semantic changes, for which I am happy to leave any
> discussion to when it is a WG I-D.  One is the change of the first 
> sentence from
> 'This document describes requirements for data plane OAM for GMPLS'
> to
> 'This document describes requirements for control plane OAM for GMPLS'
> which sounds quite a change.   In practice, this does not reflect a 
> dramatic
> change of contents, but then again, I do not think either sentence gets it 
> quite
> right.

This tackled a comment from Don O'Connor.

I think the essence of Don's point was that the techniques being described 
were not data plane OAM. In fact, while we may leverage data plane OAM, for 
most (all?) technologies with which we are dealing, the data plane OAM is 
already defined (stroke being defined) by other bodies or other working 
groups.

We'd be happy to see another formulation of this text.

> Second, I notice a much stronger emphasis on (SNMP) MIB modules; I presume 
> it is
> too early to accommodate other forms, such as the nascent NETCONF.

Ah. Hmm.

As you say, NetConf is nascent. It would be a trifle premature to *require* 
NetConf conformance. In fact, the requirements would perhaps be a little 
more abstract (e.g., "standardised tools for operational management") if 
there wasn't also the general IETF "SHOULD" applied to the development of 
MIB modules for all protocols and protocol extensions.

Cheers,
Adrian