Hi Andy/Stewart/Matthew,
I hope you are doing well.
I’m soliciting your feedback on this text which is included in
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization:
An example of "Path-Congruent OAM" is the Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV), described is Section 6 of
[RFC5085] as "The VCCV message travels in-band with the Session
and follows the exact same path as the user data for the session".
Thus, the term "in-band" in [RFC5085] refers to using the same
path as the user data. This term is also used in Section 2 of
[RFC6669] with the same meaning, and the word "congruent" is
mentioned as synonymous.
Do you see any disconnect between this text and RFC5085?
FWIW, draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization defines “Path-Congruent OAM” as
follows:
The OAM information follows the exact same path as the observed
data traffic. This was sometimes referred to as "in-band".
Thank you.
Cheers,
Med
PS: Please see below for more context.
De : Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
Envoyé : mercredi 4 juin 2025 07:32
À : Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com>
Cc : Ops Area WG <opsawg@ietf.org>
Objet : [OPSAWG]Re: WG LAST CALL: Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"
Hi Carlos,
please find my notes below tagged GIM2>>.
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 1:21 AM Carlos Pignataro
<cpign...@gmail.com<mailto:cpign...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Greg:
While I’ll defer to Tal for a detailed response, I’ve provided three key points
inline.
See “CMP:” below
On Jun 1, 2025, at 7:49 PM, Greg Mirsky
<gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Tal,
thank you for explaining updates. Please find my follow-up notes below tagged
GIM>>.
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 5:59 PM Tal Mizrahi
<tal.mizrahi....@gmail.com<mailto:tal.mizrahi....@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thanks again for reviewing the draft. Your comments for the previous
versions have helped in improving the draft.
Please see my responses to the latest comments that you have sent to
the authors off-list when you kindly reviewed an intermediate version
of the draft.
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 8:38 PM Greg Mirsky
<gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Tal,
>
> Thank you for your work on addressing my comments. I reviewed the working
> version of the draft and have some comments and questions, which are below.
> Section 2:
>
> It is noted that "A frequently encountered case is the use of "in-band" to
> mean either in-packet or on-path." If that is the case, and there are many
> IETF documents that use these interpretations of "in-band," it seems like it
> would be easy to provide several references in support of that assumption.
[TM] Following your comment we have focused the following two paragraphs.
The following paragraph demonstrates the use of the term "in-band" in
the context of path-congruent OAM:
Connectivity Verification (VCCV), described is Section 6 of
[RFC5085] as "The VCCV message travels in-band with the Session
and follows the exact same path as the user data for the session".
Thus, the term "in-band" in [RFC5085] refers to using the same
path as the user data. This term is also used in Section 2 of
[RFC6669] with the same meaning, and the word "congruent" is
mentioned as synonymous.
GIM>> I don't think that your interpretation of "in-band" in RFC 5085 is
accurate. The VCCV message not only traverses the same path as a data packet
because the same labels are applied along the path, but it also receives the
same forwarding treatment by the network because the same Traffic Class is used
for the VCCV message as for the data packet. Thus, it is in-band with the
monitored data flow, and topological equivalence is only one element, while it
must be complemented by the QoS equivalence.
CMP: As an author of RFC 5085, I can confirm that you are completely wrong on
this.
GIM2>> That is your personal opinion, not the opinion of other authors, and
even less the opinion of PWE3 (later PALS) WG. As the PALS WG is winding down,
the MPLS WG may be the community to provide a more authoritative interpretation
of RFC 5085.
CMP: That said, you do not need to be an author to know this, you can actually
**read** the RFC, where it says:
CMP: "in-band (i.e., following the same data-plane faith as PW data).”
CMP: “ travels in-band with the Session and follows the exact same path as the
user data for the session"
CMP: Let’s not make up ‘interpretations’.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
