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

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