[ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-pam-01 comments

Kiran Makhijani <kiran.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 30 May 2023 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <kiran.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D433FC151064 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 May 2023 16:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t7p800OlTOne for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 May 2023 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19418C14CE39 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 May 2023 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1b00ed75e34so8085185ad.1 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 May 2023 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1685489948; x=1688081948; h=mime-version:content-language:accept-language:message-id:date :thread-index:thread-topic:subject:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=jR9CPVYdGlQbINok61gMk6BQpUawg5zMJFeH1DFvsXQ=; b=Uzg9AUqLK+fG1ZfoT4iGq01TTem0R1h25Q0/KOeOYQT9bSKpHcUSEtYuPFm8C5g3Md NLoD5RegbmZtcM75IeKJ1756FqWgjZ2OTT6rzKapZDvvk8gGBnH2mzIheZjwcgtoHrLd +GlKInxZNmJ9Gr4LEGWZxWUnF859FNY+JUPXJRvUV0FBvz/EQF4heuhqftzXNXe4+MmS Cud3F4VCe21Uaf+NWd2ELfj1QaNV+8Yy/FrTyNwqeyjufxPoCUt3SUhm8UjAveVWdNLW KQPWsFjRApqfGjryquH0Xh/8Dw6VFRqFnDkhpVOMehZtbF3pbLKXGGQ3GMgieADhYTv+ uRUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685489948; x=1688081948; h=mime-version:content-language:accept-language:message-id:date :thread-index:thread-topic:subject:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jR9CPVYdGlQbINok61gMk6BQpUawg5zMJFeH1DFvsXQ=; b=DiPs4hY5786pIMSGwZpTdoBWocfcYWhGCXWgvQ48VIpCvAh3FtWDWnZ/Z62nA5Ya6p h19nXFm2AQhMItE5rHTJjYkxyyR6upxVeQCWvgqCGqs6/gnGpIAncNSQoTgROs2iJaut 44y1kF+qJ6HiclKhsidoYkGv6zeOFg41RfX1iPFqUtw7VXn9cySxTJZb9ebnH2h3UEg2 QgFdMFYFHuhfoerRoaEvLJzLnPFHfV9IwW07CePbMqgaolJG9KQGyCtrTTYGUaFBSXJY yHLPMTbPbEPRfxR950LY93H380EmYn5GDEkmCV+V2kNY+inv76PG7w9fVmr4unNSL4OR FgWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDz/rOAkAzZa3BDjDSDTGtG7WxQoFzxu9Ilg55dqBg9xeD0n5ebX EukQ5x6W3PylJx0VecHd8I8qSRDJOl0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6+P9RNszCVP4JnHNxwbbfZ5qp+O0mjN7GUG1XXBKRgXx5LTErWAW/JV+oIzEoAQ5zH5gh7Ow==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:22c4:b0:1a6:e00b:c3e5 with SMTP id y4-20020a17090322c400b001a6e00bc3e5mr908565plg.4.1685489948150; Tue, 30 May 2023 16:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SJ0PR03MB6469.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([2603:1036:307:490e::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jb18-20020a170903259200b001ac2c3e54adsm3562363plb.118.2023.05.30.16.39.07 for <ippm@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 May 2023 16:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kiran Makhijani <kiran.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ippm-pam-01 comments
Thread-Index: AQHZk06Mm0aULEtRb0+IOi/29V1zrA==
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 23:39:06 +0000
Message-ID: <SJ0PR03MB646916965E242657FE4ABC2EF74B9@SJ0PR03MB6469.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_SJ0PR03MB646916965E242657FE4ABC2EF74B9SJ0PR03MB6469namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/MJCQ1M9gLKIs1JtBUQ1lyF4eTzc>
Subject: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-pam-01 comments
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 23:39:10 -0000

Hello authors,
Thank you for this work. It complements SLO work that was done in TEAS for network slices. The draft is clearly written overall, I had a comment and a question.

In second paragraph: An example of an SLO... It is important to note that it is being defined as a state, and thus, it has conditions that define entry into it and exit out of it.                                                       ^^^
Do you mean that the SLO is defined as a state with conditions? I am not clear what is being conveyed here with regards to defects and SLOs. Perhaps some improvement in text will be helpful.

One question worth discussing is where do you choose to collect PAMs in the network? The way I understood, it may not always be from one point in the service path (although the examples I have for measuring latency, pkt loss, bandwidth can all be performed at egress service node). May be for a route policy or path policy some intermediate point in the service path could be used. I am assuming, PAM component resides in the management plane, where it has services and their SLOs configured. i.e., they are inherently indirect metrics. Am I right? Perhaps, I am completely off, thought I should ask anyway.

Cheers,
Kiran