IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Fri, 10 February 2017 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 7345F129636 for <ioam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:16:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 vuoQ7gBw7YnK for <ioam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5653612959A for <ioam@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 19901 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2017 13:10:13 +0100
Received: from p5dec2a07.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (HELO ?192.168.178.33?) (93.236.42.7) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 10 Feb 2017 13:10:13 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <6F7EEE4C-2D31-438E-B672-49FEED30C1A4@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:10:12 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <58201ECE-F536-4ADC-98DE-95BCDAC28D31@kuehlewind.net>
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>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/TLPB8WhXishZOCoVxqzX5sorIv4>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:32:24 -0800
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, 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 12:16:57 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email