Quick reply,
I am in the hospital at the moment awaiting heart surgery.
So I am not going to dig up the pointers now (maybe in a few weeks if still
needed).
Hope you or someone else can find the relevant pointers.
In any event, I believe that Benoit and Adrian are aware of all the other
ongoing work.
Sorry,
Bert
On 21/12/2016 07:02, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
Hi, Bert,
Please find a couple of follow-ups inline.
—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com <mailto:car...@cisco.com>
/“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound
more photosynthesis."/
On Dec 14, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) <berti...@bwijnen.net
<mailto:berti...@bwijnen.net>> wrote:
i am not sure if it is wise to adopt these 3 drafts as WG documents at this
point in time. At our WG session in Seoul, (when the WG chairs did a humm for
this in the session), I spoke up and stated that during the week in Seoul
there had been several presentations on inband OAM and Telemetry.
Would it be possible for you to share pointers to (at least a few of the
several) specific presentations and Internet-Drafts that
overlap with or complement this work?
Note that the title of this documents was renamed to “In-Situ” (with thanks to
Erik Nordmark for the suggestion) so as to not
confuse with the IETF definition of “inband”.
And I suggested that it might be wise to first analyze what is available and
already used or tested. Once we know that, we might be in a much better
position to determine which type of "inband OAM" or "Telemetry" mechanism makes
most sense.
Since specific pointers on what’s available is a pre requisite to understanding
the landscape, see above.
My understanding of the humm in the WG was" "is this sort of work interesting
and do we as a WG want to work on thos". To that question, the humm seemed to
indicate that we indeed do fond the work relevant and interesting and that we
as the OPSAWG want to work on it. I took notes during our OPSAWG session in
Seoul, and I wrote down on this topic of inband OAM (and that has been posted
as draft minutes as well):
Open question as where to land this work (OPS or TSV) ??
Joel: the actual OAM methods vary on what the transport is.
BW: there seem to be various telemetry ideas being presented at various
places
(WGs, RGs) should we get a summary of what is being discussed before we
adopt a particular approach
“Telemetry” is such a broadly defined word that invariably, there will be
“telemetry work” everywhere. When we focus and narrow
scope on the actual specifics of in-situ OAM, that does not seem to be the case
anymore.
I do not believe the question is “does the WG want to take on telemetry”.
Daniel King: yes we have seen some in SDNRG
Benoit: how do you get the data off the devices
That is still to be decided
Chairs: humm for: do we i(OPSAWG) want to work on telemetry
conclusion: yes we do
Benoit: there is a pub/subscribe which is related
So I find it a step too quick/fast to now determine which documents to adopt
as WG document. Let us get (from someone versen in the field of inband OAM
and telemetry) get a summary of the various types of work that has already been
presented/proposed in the IETF (and possibly at other places) and let us then
see if we can choose a way forward.
I believe it is a fair request to compare and contrast and understand a broader
picture. But that request expects more specifics
than a perhaps someone else should do it.
Given the very specific requirements detailed by operators and vendors in
draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt, the fact
that we had to create a new descriptor (i.e., “In-Situ”) for this approach, and
lack of specifics, it seems to me that the area of
in-situ OAM is non-overlapping with other “telemetry" potential work elsewhere.
Thanks,
— Carlos.
Bert
On 07/12/2016 07:36, Zhoutianran wrote:
Hi All,
In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive response
on related drafts.
So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt
To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But you can
give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per
I-D.
The question is:
Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?
It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the drafts. If
"yes", would you like to review the drafts and help
to improve the drafts? If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.
This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.
Thanks,
Tianran & Warren
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
