IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Fri, 10 February 2017 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ioam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ioam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24070128B38; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 06:30:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6qHmVOZc2N2v; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 06:30:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5214126DFB; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 06:30:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3228; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486737033; x=1487946633; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=yh68q7+yL2FoBgR5bneTSYAu41cN1Ub5ov5uRgevTkU=; b=gtBu7kbsYVuw7M90S5PL8tuZ7GZ8bFA57rVuJvsMfa4mjM/zrt5W3W5w z4pDUTwgUEmd37E/LWy2XqIIfYvgC4AxH7I8MxHTkdxKoS80lwt+OIP5j nvdC+ZU+tTX3sChZPPbrdfHFjvLXEya9FvHKv3A9CcMb2e639usXMN2NG A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CGAQA8zp1Y/5NdJa1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgygqgWoHg1KKCJIMlTaCDYYiAhqCXD8YAQIBAQEBAQEBYiiEaQEBAQMBIxE3BwcFCwIBCBgCAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FiXAIr1+CJYtRAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYELhUGCBYJqh1ougjEFm3IBkhOBe4UXiXOTFAEfOH5PFU0BhjB1iRKBDAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,141,1484006400"; d="scan'208";a="205035451"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Feb 2017 14:30:10 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (xch-rtp-005.cisco.com [64.101.220.145]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1AEU9B3016503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:30:09 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:30:08 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:30:08 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Thread-Topic: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)
Thread-Index: AQHSgjmziLYbR6WLQk6B61NU2m1JJqFf5E4AgAECTQCAAFm/gIABPEYAgAAnGQA=
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:30:08 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F519F1-B7A7-46AD-B67A-4A7BD9883FA7@cisco.com>
References: <148657872835.4362.4208222446069276322.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKKJt-cwinU_f+Kgb+PuUfufZdAL788ZyYjd_2o3UCLwE5FJmQ@mail.gmail.com> <5EADB2FC-9112-4C6F-956D-C9B0A7FA405F@cisco.com> <6F7EEE4C-2D31-438E-B672-49FEED30C1A4@cisco.com> <58201ECE-F536-4ADC-98DE-95BCDAC28D31@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <58201ECE-F536-4ADC-98DE-95BCDAC28D31@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.150.48.110]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <983AC63FABC27944B92EBEC5274DBE20@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/-EruAxr6VaW_If9rPnQfUdQRm6Y>
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, The IAB <iab@iab.org>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, "ioam@ietf.org" <ioam@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)
X-BeenThere: ioam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion on In-Situ OAM <ioam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ioam>, <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ioam/>
List-Post: <mailto:ioam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam>, <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:30:36 -0000

Hi, Mirja,

This is a good point, please see inline.

> On Feb 10, 2017, at 7:10 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> also one more comment on this point:
> 
>> Am 09.02.2017 um 18:18 schrieb Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>:
>> 
>>>> Is there any connection with IPPM?
>> 
>> Yes, there is, as already mentioned above.
> 
> 
> The charter currently says:
> 
> "Other ongoing OAM-related efforts in working groups(s) such as MPLS and
> IPPM that do not piggyback information onto the live user data traffic
> are out of scope of the IOAM WG.“

The IOAM work is not narrowscoped to only PM. Things like path tracing are not PM.

On the other hand, IPPM is only about PM, and in fact its charter starts with:
“The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group develops and maintains
standard metrics that can be applied to the quality, performance, and
reliability of Internet data delivery services and applications running
over transport layer protocols (e.g. TCP, UDP) over IP."

> 
> which indictates that cooperation with IPPM is not planned.
> 

I think that this ought to be fixed/refined, and I like the sentence that Frank proposed.

This collaboration is important.

> To me in general the relation between this work and other ongoing work in the IETF is not very clear and IPPM has several documents and milestones that are in scope for this work:
> 
> - Submit a draft on the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option as Proposed Standard: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option (this draft is mainly done and silenter the publication process soon to my understanding)
> 
> - Submit an Experimental draft on coloring-based hybrid measurement methodologies for loss and delay to the IESG: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03
> 
> I don’t think that the assessment in the charter that IPPM's scope does not include piggybacked information is correct. Looking at draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-02, I think that any work on IPV6 and IPv6 in this scope should be done in IPPM because that’s were this work is already on-going and where the measurement expertise is.
> 

I think that IPPM can leverage IOAM and its IPv6 transport insofaras defining PM methods. But IOAM > PM.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

> Mirja
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email