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

Greg Mirsky <> Tue, 22 March 2022 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96833A0CBD; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 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_HI=-5, 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 7w0qsuzcz1jZ; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E07B23A0C51; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k21so12061194lfe.4; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:49:50 -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=uUfgr1q/4s9d42/FofCTrtK9nMsNt4MNbrkgz+H6YAg=; b=KKg1dL8F38gMJ8e52GqWKMvxr+s5t2tZzDkIyWFjIRxt3zE0RbnCwv6leMP0TOZDfE 9RFmQ9FyweAQUZtQtTRh6JzIafnwLQqJk6KKP9ha2uaayNHpNWNYNh3UDTGB0tZdh2oK 3muE/G07L9WaLfd+7DM2avS49PUY1KDFmcGGZbSyxK8hWR3tIsmrOLsSl8ddxJLACbzV 1xBBnXTcHcguk3EmO2cLFAsdZXtALlFaUvTOkXvzWnzBdGy/gpxQvICGjAWZINBqcA2S GaxOrVxM489vfErV1Bu0sQEWxx0ZMDqqJYUETqrf8S6HDKs0vhoSINcVfPcYWAonbEGF ypHA==
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=uUfgr1q/4s9d42/FofCTrtK9nMsNt4MNbrkgz+H6YAg=; b=AJLQID2RRC+AqYFs/moZkqgxk9fUm1Z9cairRdgT6SWYKBguJ9uHAahytbQQnnZmVs Q/0RrmB/KTJPCz6NOtmW/wrHEKLb2mF9apEiCjYzGOjuAcNjfIvikzEVovSUfgT29lc0 MP99mx8nFND9YIEVqiKdhgWGWo9eJbqGkWcvsjzBctKrjZIGnCE+WwL3fW90V5u+B5aa M11XxwLJ6CrCb3xNbHrovCvxVSQ8rcNoDYOxppeUpUS0bZrx+HsowgJ1mjlzIA9XjkAA fMpiBcCrBylUvrv5Lyc4sgtIx89UPWkqSzyeQswokTUqoCVzaqOvXrxKBYdXjsThNAfm euCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53374BjEyX7YVAzbe7laA8ywFJw9ZljsQES2I01kFEiPy4GySyzg tU8gFr79IRTp1NV7Cuo6AeqbGrAA46mwKPf2tB1Z97C2
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCxwT9ULu8mrwORNBQ3QDL7U1iG4AzfnVVN2vHaIu4lSHlRUB3Mh2vIhLN1jRCHXwSQG2FMBfWqv6k66DFNBQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4107:0:b0:44a:3084:39f8 with SMTP id b7-20020ac24107000000b0044a308439f8mr4683188lfi.209.1647938988525; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:49:36 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Dhruv Dhody <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000005cd6605dacab2a8"
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 08:49:53 -0000

Hi Dhruv,
yes, your understanding is absolutely correct.


On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 1:47 AM Dhruv Dhody <> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
> Is there a way to wordsmith this to say the actual measurements might be
> via any technique, but the act of subscription and publication of the
> measurements is considered "passive". I hope I understood that correctly.
> Looking forward to your text.
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 1:45 PM Greg Mirsky <> wrote:
>> 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?
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>> 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