Re: [Detnet] DetNet OAM drafts progressing

[Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,
Thanks for the modifications.
Cheers
Bala'zs

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 2:14 AM
To: Fabrice Theoleyre <[e-mail]>
Cc: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: DetNet OAM drafts progressing

Hi Fabrice,
thank you for your expedient response and support. I hope to get the opinions of others before uploading the new version.

Dear All,
please review the updates in the attached diff and share your thoughts, and comments.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:41 PM Fabrice Theoleyre <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Dear Greg,
>
> I’m fine with the modifications.
> Thanks a lot for the reformulation!
>
> Best,
> Fabrice
>
>
>
> Le 9 juin 2022 à 22:23, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>
> Hi Balazs and Fabrice,
> thank you for the discussion. I agree with the solutions proposed by 
> Fabrice. I've updated the draft and welcome your comments. Attached, 
> please find the diff and new version of the draft. Would these updates 
> be acceptable?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:13 AM Fabrice Theoleyre 
> <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Bala'zs,
>>
>> Please see online my comments.
>>
>>
>> In today’s call we have discussed two topics regarding section 5 
>> “Maintenance”
>> of the OAM framework document
>> (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-05.txt):
>>
>> Sorry, I zapped the interim meeting. It was too late when I noticed it.
>>
>>
>> A) Section 5.1.  Replication / Elimination “ … Each MEP
>>    will decide to trigger the packet replication, elimination or the
>>    ordering process when a set of metrics passes a threshold value.”
>> We may need some clarification here. Changing of PREOF functions is a 
>> task for the DetNet controller, the MP (MEP or MIP) will only trigger 
>> the controller to take actions. An update might be needed with better 
>> phrasing.
>>
>>
>> Actually, this scenario is rather for wireless links. When the link 
>> quality degrades (under a threshold), some additional features may be 
>> triggered locally. These features have been installed by the 
>> controller, but the node decides by itself to activate them.
>> However, that’s rather for RAW. We can probably safely remove it from 
>> the detnet draft.
>>
>>
>> B) Section 5.3.  Soft transition after reconfiguration The need for 
>> such a sub-section regarding OAM may worth for some discussions. 
>> PREOF itself is a tool for soft transition. It may the implementation 
>> of PREOF that allow the soft configuration changes, not the related 
>> OAM tools. So, the question for the WG: do we need OAM specific soft 
>> transition? If yes, for what (any example)?
>>
>> Any comments/views are appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had the feeling that the monitoring process has to be adapted after 
>> a soft reconfiguration.
>> Else, states may be inconsistent.
>>
>> However, a metric may perfectly reflect the SLO of a complex path, or 
>> individual subpaths as well.
>> Thus, I don’t find a relevant example where it would be required