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

Very good discussion.

Another aspect to note is that we see value for in-situ OAM for monitoring
network functions (especially virtual) besides network interconnects. This
is captured in Section 3 in the draft (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krishnan-opsawg-in-band-pro-sla/?include_text=1
).

I believe IPPM charter addresses only network monitoring.

Thanks,
Ramki

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:

> Hi Frank, hi all,
>
> please see in-line.
>
> > Am 10.02.2017 um 14:38 schrieb Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <
> fbrockne@cisco.com>:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> >
> > you raise an interesting point. The IPPM charter states  " Specifying
> network or lower layer OAM mechanisms is out of scope of the IPPM
> charter.", whereas the WG has " Submit a draft on the IPv6 Performance and
> Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option as Proposed Standard
> > draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option" as a milestone. I'd assume that we'd
> likely qualify IPv6 as a transport protocol…
>
> If you also cite the sentence before this, this might become clearer:
>
> "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. Specifying network
> or lower layer OAM mechanisms is out of scope of the IPPM charter.“
>
> It’s focused on performance measurements of data delivery services and
> application, not metric sthat are specific to network operation e.g.
> up-time of a router (as an example that just came to my mind).
>
> So to me the scope and the goals of IPPM and IOAM are overlapping
> currently as for me "real-time telemetry of individual data packets and
> flows“ is exactly what IPPM is doing.
>
> >
> > So far I understood the main focus of the new IOAM WG to be
> network-layer focused, i.e. piggyback OAM-meta-data onto network-layer
> protocols - but that does not necessarily need to be always the case as you
> implicitly highlight by drawing the link to IPPM. One could also do so
> using e.g. TCP options. I did not read the statement on IPPM in the draft
> charter as "not cooperating with IPPM" - I read it in a way that methods
> that do not piggyback information on live traffic are not considered in
> IOAM. That said, especially when it comes to export and interpretation of
> in-situ OAM data, there might indeed be common ground between IOAM and IPPM.
>
> My point is not that there needs to be cooperation. My point is that we
> already have a working group that is mostly charter to do what you want to
> do.
>
> Mirja
>
>
> >
> > How about we add another sentence to the charter that underlines the
> fact that IOAM would actively seek cooperation with other related efforts?
> We could add something like:
> >
> > "The IOAM WG seeks cooperation with other appropriate standards bodies
> and forums to promote consistent approaches, as well as definition and
> interpretation of in-situ OAM data."
> >
> > This would naturally capture IETF WGs like IPPM - but also efforts like
> INT in P4, hence we'd even cast the net a little wider.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks, Frank
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
> (IETF)
> > Sent: Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 13:10
> > To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>; Alvaro Retana
> (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com>
> > Cc: iesg@ietf.org; The IAB <iab@iab.org>; Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>; ioam@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)
> >
> > 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.“
> >
> > which indictates that cooperation with IPPM is not planned.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ioam mailing list
> > Ioam@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ioam mailing list
> Ioam@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam
>

-- 
Thanks,
Ramki