Re: [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 D727D1295A6; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 MCCLGIShkmiP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 083C7129406; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id u68so11914858ywg.0; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DFKjOB7aPGW381SXt7moGn30n9PKS8761kKd7mqIbaU=; b=WLARhtvsqcC1fx5Ri3NREX0uck6kLXxtRG9DtPvyHTeEYfri5eCBXwQHJZ9QPN0HC+ 1kc6jSfGwO0VkrjXur8d4WhtbipoTLnvCh7Iq8hJIQshykS3i4qfq6aLfBI/zWUUvXCa FW9Z46hB9bvoER+imlc6wi2Votta2/eKMVRhfeG0XbH0fELF5V1yYUAwLeXQuX9u2IlK CqrRSgvvbudMqswQg5Cb3afojN+bu83kVtzBiss2Bm6kZTHucAuGkoGa35U2+Z/V3EvR XU6B2F2MiuUO/dSuGA3gqLXajbGPNAQ93KClIBwiK7JWuIbc3h5dJXeTaTaWyqb0ADoN x4CQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DFKjOB7aPGW381SXt7moGn30n9PKS8761kKd7mqIbaU=; b=cpPu2MVdeTf83Lr3suixphGyvNISzT0XezoOYgALa2k2POW/dF7kxdsCRCq0u3RsVV BbcimUKLUjOfoltLmZ3EZYF0AxTRKMXOP+WAdTa/qnooOBxq+ajWOvRh4On4fjYRCIu4 YdC2rRZz2P/sKHJ3/SrMQx3MBygR7Q6+ssmOKPDvzfeVF9izTg2pIQZQraHVvDrr5cIC BTb5RHSNpYZTKkuSmyxEAbRRDvnoGNOENHMXS6yY07rpbOlQJSVTJ0IhiGJkdSkkxRkt UgArdXFhUKL+jmJ5osBtsYgnjIxY4s2chRe0Uls0OjayyER0GU7lB264QfLJpk854+gw cQDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l8GDYjAQ8S5ldOcm+9TNIOj81QXJe6fiYVd/XZt/0S4z728DnxMof9n1xNJtGEz+3ESyBlDAn47yamwA==
X-Received: by 10.13.243.197 with SMTP id c188mr2559768ywf.248.1487267447203; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.234.9 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <098c01d28879$870afbb0$9520f310$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <D6A07644-3D48-4BF3-B4E5-8951A82A5951@cisco.com> <098c01d28879$870afbb0$9520f310$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:50:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-f6TwH4hSWPULSGdONQJTUcZLQky7S8pAqBJkfXiKUrAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c035690e0a6d50548a96f2f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/rMSrtpcNEFQodrvv29LzDJH0FQE>
Cc: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, ioam@ietf.org, "tsv-ads@ietf.org" <tsv-ads@ietf.org>, ippm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward
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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:50:50 -0000

Hi, Adrian,

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> [...scurries to subscribe to another mailing list]
>

:-)


> Can the TSV ADs comment on whether there is a plan to re-charter IPPM:
>
> - To be applicable to network layer and lower
>
> - To be scoped beyond "metrics" (such as path trace)
>
> - To attend to more detail than "characterize the network paths under test
>
>  and/or the performance of transport and application layer protocols on
>
>   these paths"
>

Sure, I can comment (responsible AD for IPPM).

We spoke with Brian and Bill (co-chairs for IPPM this morning), and Brian
thinks IPPM would need to change about 15 percent of its charter to have
IOPM in scope.

If IPPM is willing to take this work on, I would, of course, want IPPM's
charter to reflect this work.

The discussions I've been involved with have been about the network layer,
but not about anything lower.

I could imagine path trace as a very basic metric, of course, but for the
kind of details you're asking about, we've been talking about the
relationship between IOAM and IPPM for less than 36 hours which overlapped
a formal telechat, so I'd expect us to have a better-thought-out plan in
the near future than we have today ...

Spencer


> Thanks,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alvaro Retana
> (aretana)
> *Sent:* 16 February 2017 16:58
> *To:* ioam@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward
>
>
>
> Hi!
>
>
>
> First of all, thank you all for the interest expressed in this topic and
> the discussions about the charter.
>
>
>
> As you know, one of the discussions resulting from the Internal Review of
> the proposed IOAM charter was whether the work was already within the ippm
> WG scope or not.  Over the last couple of days, I have dug deeper into that
> question with the Transport ADs and the ippm WG Chairs, and our conclusion
> is that there is significant overlap between the current ippm Charter and
> the proposed IOAM work.  Enough to justify moving the work forward in the
> ippm WG and not splintering a related effort into a new WG.
>
>
>
> I have then stopped the chartering effort for a new WG.  The proponents
> will start discussions on the ippm list soon – please join if you’re not
> there already.  I will keep this list open for a couple more days.
>
>
>
> Clearly there is interest in developing this cross-area work in the IETF.
> I hope that you will continue to participate as the topic progresses on the
> ippm WG.  It is important that this type of cross-area efforts be properly
> discussed and that we don’t create more silos.  I realize it took us a
> couple of tries to find what I think is a stable home for the IOAM work – I
> know that the open discussion has only helped the overall process.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Alvaro.
>