Re: [ippm] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-pam-08: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

and yes, when I understand what does "end-to-end" mean here then I can
suggest text :-).

//Zahed

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 12:03 PM Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> I am still stack on the concept of "end-to-end" here.
>
> What is the scope of this "end-to-end"? if this is used for a service
> which is deployed in the Internet then we might have multiple networks
> carrying the flow, to whom the SLO and PAM works then? Very often in Mobile
> network the end-to-end means, Mobile edge network - gateway router (UPF) to
> the UE, again in ISPs/transit network we can think about end-to-end between
> ingress and egress node. In all the cases a flow can be tracked. Hence,
> here we need to put some context to the definition of the "end-to-end". I
> might be misunderstanding the whole intention here, in that case please
> correct me.
>
> //Zahed
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 8:03 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Zahed,
>> thank you for your question. Your question is close to the question
>> Roman raised in his review
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/aIYEZqKUUyFNjooQGM8TQE1cwTk/>.
>> To address Roman's comment the sentence edited in the working version as
>> follows:
>> NEW TEXT:
>>    This specification introduces a new set of metrics, Precision
>>    Availability Metrics (PAM), aimed at capturing end-to-end service
>>    levels for a flow, specifically the degree to which the flow complies
>>    with the SLOs that are in effect.
>> Our intention is to stress that PAM is used to monitor a flow and
>> reflects its conformance to the SLOs. A service, in this model, may include
>> one or more flows, and hence, each flow might be characterized using PAM
>> according to the set of SLOs. Would you suggest any text update to further
>> clarify that relationship? I will upload the new version with updates
>> addressing all comments received in the course of IESG discussions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:45 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-ippm-pam-08: No Objection
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to
>>> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
>>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-pam/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Thanks for working on this specification.
>>>
>>> Even though I get the SLO idea, but this specification says
>>>
>>>    Precision Availability Metrics (PAM), aimed at capturing end-to-end
>>> service
>>>    levels for a flow, specifically the degree to which flows comply with
>>> the
>>>    SLOs that are in effect.
>>>
>>> and I am not sure I get how PAM executes on the end-to-end service
>>> levels or
>>> what does the "end-to-end" mean in this context. I think it would good to
>>> clarify that aspect in this document.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>