MaintenanceEntity object class should be removed

[italobusi]

While the ME concept is very valid from an OAM architectural perspective, the definition of an object class to describe it seems useless and potentially incorrect

The need to have an MaintenanceEntity is not fully clear: a MaintenanceJob can be created between two MEPs to measure the performances of the ME between these two MEPs

Using the MaintenanceEntity would make it difficult to model the multicast OAM tools where e.g., DM is used with multicast DA to measure the delay between one MEP and all its peer MEPs within the same MEG

Moreover, the MEs can be known only by the entity which know all the MEPs within an MEG since it is a relationship between two MEPs in the same MEG

As discussed in previous meetings, the following issues exist if a MaintenanceEntity object class is defined:

• MIPs can belong to one or more MEs depending on the "route" of the MEs
• in multi-domain scenarios, it is possible to configure in one domain an MEG between "edge" MIPs (and no MEPs): in this case there is not enough information to understand how many MEs exist between these two MIPs

[italobusi]

The last two scenarios have been discussed in previous ONF meetings and some drawings done at the whiteboard: I am preparing a couple of slides to describe these scenarios