[ippm] A question about the interpretation of "performance monitoring" in draft-ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear Authors,
thank you for all your work on the document. As you can see from the
subject line, I am interested in how performance monitoring is
interpreted in your draft. You've noted in the Introduction that:
   The term performance monitoring is used in this document in a
   different from how the term has been used in TE networks for many
   years.  Performance monitoring in this document refers to
   subscription and publication of streaming telemetry data.
I think that it would be helpful to add a reference to the document that,
in your opinion, provides a different, "traditional" interpretation of
performance monitoring in TE networks. Personally, I don't see any
significant differences as I consider publication/subscription as a *method
*of performance monitoring. In my understanding, collecting information
using YANG notifications can be classified, according to RFC 7799, as a
passive measurement method (similar to SNMP queries). Another example of
the PM OAM method is an active measurement, e.g., using TWAMP or STAMP.
Lately, we've seen the development of a new type of PM - hybrid methods
that combine characteristics of passive and active methods.
I greatly appreciate your opinions on this and whether you think the draft
can use RFC 7799-style classification of performance measurement methods.

Regards,
Greg