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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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