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

Greg Mirsky <> Tue, 22 March 2022 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050C93A0C4B; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EUDsd4mrTVGN; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA7303A0C49; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id bu29so28531325lfb.0; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ik+mTNWX9qq4YKbLP8o6PRUX4kZXH70ioqQRp3JQLU0=; b=GxIV6SUFbQySqKaVt2CRc1/e4lOGRUyv6YTMNCuIgZH0xjS0bl1OCai2uuUY0qAvEt w6Jf3IN3SlOCyy65bz8MiMaYzZJExbyDGA/LAN6dN5Ye9II1V8GaPOykfAwcqggv9SuA CPvGVv/pIFdkkeeUsl6DvIkI/bfFf4m4HF76Zeg0oOocL7HRjYf9Mc8V+Hi6RhZLmm0A FJ0xILGBmJ3zzWhEoW7IJ06Qu04hQCYunTVqEn9gNKbv1BHrjpTHqXRV7AyeMFgOKKRc Nwgm5VfVSMeFzkbuQxvBm//13hseZYadsXepE0k9ye/9U3RrRzs/NlJ9QdZowblATGdz LFaw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ik+mTNWX9qq4YKbLP8o6PRUX4kZXH70ioqQRp3JQLU0=; b=6ytX0NoyBSlmoD8x80kggA1X11FyGvMFUFSwTLXRzd6YP9pduKIYLR5QD5uX67gy4h +ft/KJQEdeFMSkzXps1scGnBwYB4ZR4kZueghvmUfLO1XSrfMv3BExs/p/AQMCxQuO1R vq43uzBdsNCoVrrbo4e0fxINlbTx7JQu6IFr0YNkpR6zIZ11viUWKtEeTo5iUEkx+arW luhSxrolLz/Jw2T/J+Ivm2JcYikX5ejaSBd76JANcXhiljZmbcxRPvOwIzjEzWB8ykX9 hcSE/jolxPdD0bLaN8coUgkEfiukNqe+GvlvPrdfmebZS3syPJ/Tsp2J7sdRqt88HhzL kmOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533HZ4E9EWuXHyDeDeV5vLhcLkbATeS5p0x21Uq3zHtW1JsOI4iH oT9lip5H+e9tTfenbvh/R/OeqpaxK2FN598UZ099tgE5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxsEc531k+TDFqS+RPJRofMOtGY6Eff5o9FE5Ru4FZ/RqQbLGqEAx9SFDqJqTZv0noejAUjx+zjCSH8Lf66as4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:6cf:b0:44a:25d1:a27 with SMTP id u15-20020a05651206cf00b0044a25d10a27mr7804142lff.18.1647936948955; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:15:37 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Dhruv Dhody <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000746cd505daca38f4"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] A question about the interpretation of "performance monitoring" in draft-ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 08:15:58 -0000

Hi Dhruv,
thank you for your expedient and very kind response to my notes. I will
gladly work on refining the text. My general approach would be to position
the YANG notification mechanism as a passive measurement method according
to RFC 7799. Would that be acceptable?


On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 9:30 PM Dhruv Dhody <> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
> Thanks for the feedback. Will it be possible for you to propose the exact
> text change you would like to see and we could discuss that? I can draft
> the text but as you are the subject-matter-expert, I am sure you would do a
> much better job :)
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 1:45 AM Greg Mirsky <> wrote:
>> 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