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

I would be very careful about using this proposal as a justification for 
an iOAM working group.
it is SFC specific.
And there are some interesting challenges in the details.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/10/17 12:09 PM, Ram Krishnan wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>     <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
>     <mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>>; Alvaro Retana (aretana)
>     <aretana@cisco.com <mailto:aretana@cisco.com>>
>     > Cc: iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>; The IAB <iab@iab.org
>     <mailto:iab@iab.org>>; Spencer Dawkins at IETF
>     <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
>     <mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>>; ioam@ietf.org
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Ioam@ietf.org>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ioam mailing list
>     Ioam@ietf.org <mailto:Ioam@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Ramki
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ioam mailing list
> Ioam@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam
>