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

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

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.
>>
>>
>>
>>