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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,
yes, your understanding is absolutely correct.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 1:47 AM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>