LIME CO Model Update draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-07 Deepak Kumar Zitao Wang Qin Wu Reshad Rahman Srihari Raghavan IETF 96

Activities since IETF 96 Three interim meetings to advance LIME work One for CO model One for CL model One for BFD & Lime Have requested YANG doctor/coordinator review and wait for feedback. IETF 96

Is MEG-ID technology specific? Issue: It was argued that MEG-ID is not generic parameter in the base model Equivalent to the term Maintenance Association Identifier (MAID). The term is defined by ITU, and used in MPLS-TP Solution: Removed MEG-ID from base model The user can add it in the technology specific model based on specific requirement IETF 96

MIP List definition Issue: How to define the MIP list. MIP configuration parameters: address and level [G.8052] MIPs are created automatically according to a configured policy[802.1Q]. Allowing explicit MIP configuration may be technology-specific. Solution: Move the “MIP list” to technology specific model The user can augment it based on the requirement IETF 96

Relation with other YANG model Issue: The relationship with exist works such as MPLS-TP YANG. Solution: The Model specified in the protocol WG can be defined as a standalone model. Use both the model defined in protocol working group and LIME CO model as basis and augment the “CO" model with technology specific groupings. The technology specific grouping is defined in technology specific model in the protocol WG. The Applicability section will be updated to reflect this. IETF 96

YANG Compilation Error Question: There are some compilation errors. Solution: Fixed these compilation errors in (v-07). It has passed the pyang and yangvalidtor tools check now. IETF 96

Next Step prepare another version to address any comments raised in this meeting. Require another WGLC. IETF 96