Hi All,
I have read the document and I support advancing it. It is relevant as it
specifies IPFIX extensions to export SRv6 related information.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 2:54 PM
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] š W
text in the next revision.
Comments are always welcome.
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 1:23 PM
To: i...@ietf.org; Giuseppe Fioccola ;
draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment.auth...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Section 6 - draft-fz-ippm
Dear All,
Please note that we just submitted a new version of
draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment to address the comments received.
Inputs and suggestions are always welcome.
Regards,
Giuseppe
(on behalf of the coauthors)
From: Nilo Massimo
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 5:22 PM
To: thomas.g
/doc/draft-gfz-ippm-alt-mark-yang/)
These documents complement the AltMark deployment document for what concerns
the configuration (YANG) and data export (IPFIX) aspects.
Your reviews are welcomed.
Regards,
Giuseppe
(on behalf of the coauthors)
From: Giuseppe Fioccola
Sent: Monday, October 23
Hi Thomas, All,
I fully agree about the progress of draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark and
draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport.
I also think OPSAWG is the right place for the IPFIX IE definitions and for the
adoption of these documents.
IPPMers can surely help review since both AltMark and IOAM have b
Dear All,
I support the adoption of this draft since it aims to provide guidelines for
OAM terminology, and I think this is quite useful. Iām interested in
contributing and I would also suggest to involve IPPM WG for further review,
considering the correlation with RFC 7799 .
Regards,
Giuseppe
Hi Xiao, All,
We have just uploaded the new revision of draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark and
we added some text to clarify the point you raised about the LAG interface.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: xiao.m...@zte.com.cn
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 12:19 PM
To: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Cc: draft-gf
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your review and for your opinion of the draft.
I fully agree that the intended status must be standards track. I will change
it in the next revision.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 10:20 AM
To: opsawg ; IETF IPPM WG ;
draft-gfz-opsawg
Dear Alex, All,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
We will change the intended status to standards track in the next revision of
the draft.
Your considerations about the IEs for the node delay between the ingress and
the egress interface make sense, especially in the case of Alternate-Marking.
As yo
Hi Henk, All,
I support the adoption of this document as coauthor.
Regards,
Giuseppe
-Original Message-
From: Henk Birkholz
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 11:59 AM
To: OPSAWG
Subject: [OPSAWG]š WG Adoption Call for draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-01
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email s
Hi Henk,
Thank you for concluding this WG adoption.
I have just submitted draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 to replace
draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark.
Regards,
Giuseppe
-Original Message-
From: Henk Birkholz
Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2024 3:25 PM
To: OPSAWG
Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: š WG
Hi Med,
Thank you for your detailed review!
I will definitely address your comments in the next version.
Regarding the issue you raised about the operation mode, we will also add more
text to clarify.
With Alternate Marking (RFC 9341, RFC 9342), each node needs to export the
packet counters and t
Hi Med,
Thank you for addressing my comments.
The proposed changes are good for me.
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
-Original Message-
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 3:35 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola ; ops-...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment
Hi Tianran, All,
Yes, I support its adoption. I also helped with some sections of the document.
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of li zhenqiang
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2019 10:06
To: Tianran Zhou ; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Subject:
Dear All,
I have read the draft and, I think it is a very good framework, in particular
with reference to the real practical challenges.
My suggestion is to highlight a bit more the enabled closed-loop approach that
is a great added value in my opinion.
A possible way can be to introduce a new Se
Dear Haoyu,
Yes, I'm happy to send you some text in the coming days, so you can include it
in the draft.
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Haoyu Song [mailto:haoyu.s...@futurewei.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 7:57 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola ; opsawg@ietf.org;
draft-song-opsawg-ifit-f
with a step-by-step process.
To apply this mechanism an IFIT Application on top of the Controllers
can manage and the IFIT closed loop allows its dynamic and flexible
operation.
"
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Giuseppe Fioccola
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 1:51 PM
To: &
Hi All,
Yes, I support its adoption as contributor.
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 6:27 AM
To: opsawg@ietf.org; draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.auth...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [OP
Hi All,
I have read it and support its publication.
Just a minor nit: the reference to draft-fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark can
be updated to RFC8889.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:39 AM
To: ops
Dear All,
I support its adoption as relevant document for the closed loop automation.
Regards,
Giuseppe
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:00 PM
To: opsawg
Subject: [OPSAWG] š WG Adoption Call for
Dear All,
I support the adoption of this related document too.
Regards,
Giuseppe
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:02 PM
To: opsawg
Subject: [OPSAWG] š WG Adoption Call for
draft-claise-opsawg-ser
Hi All,
I have read the draft and I support its adoption.
The new IPFIX information elements introduced in this document are needed to
enable counters information to monitor SRv6 deployment and operation.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: Thursday, August 1
Hi All,
I have reviewed the draft and I think it is ready.
Regarding the Alternate-Marking Method, I suggest to add the reference to
draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark in section 3.3.2 and section 7.5, since this
document also describes the addition of the Timestamp Data Field, similarly to
draft-zho
Dear All,
Please note that we have published the new version of the draft to address the
comments from Med.
Your reviews are always welcomed.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Giuseppe Fioccola
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 11:34 AM
To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m
Thank you Thomas!
I just updated the shepherd write-up accordingly.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2025 9:12 AM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola ;
jclarke=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG LAST CALL: Export of Delay Performance Metrics
Flow Information eXport (IPFIX)
Be aware: This is an external email.
We wanted to update the WG on this draft. First, we have a shepherd! Giuseppe
Fioccola has agreed to shepherd the draft. Thank you!
The next steps are to remove the reference to the OAM characterization
document, publis
Thank you Thomas for your quick reply.
The new revision looks good to me.
I will also review the shepherd writeup as soon as you submit the new version.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 1:48 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola ;
jclarke=40cisco
Information Export (IPFIX) Alternate-Marking Information
Elements
Authors: Thomas Graf
Giuseppe Fioccola
Tianran Zhou
Mauro Cociglio
Massimo Nilo
Name:draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-02.txt
Pages: 10
Dates: 2025-02-20
Abstract
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-03.txt is now available. It is
a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) WG of
the IETF.
Title: IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Alternate-Marking Information
Elements
Authors: Thomas Graf
Giusepp
Thank you Pascal for the feedback.
I agree with Med and, in my opinion, this can be managed easily, as also
suggested in my review.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2025 3:00 PM
To: Pascal Thubert ; Giuseppe Fioccola
Cc: ops-...@ietf.org; det
Reviewer: Giuseppe Fioccola
Review result: Has Issues
This document specifies a network YANG data model for attachment circuits and
this is a really relevant work. There is a group of related documents
(draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit, draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac,
draft-ietf-opsawg
31 matches
Mail list logo
