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

Dhruv Dhody <> Tue, 22 March 2022 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A2E3A0C51; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:47:56 -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 wAakueEzhGbz; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B7423A0CBD; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b16so19458185ioz.3; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:47:54 -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=Eh/9BZuwbXWdYz5dEx/7BnOyGQLl55wUV9UfkQCeh38=; b=eKxNqlpFvnIK6sCcqUXhj3/FjgpgC/4/UiEBrkwvCCS0MwS/JiY7YH2Fg+SLwK+x/8 KqkVIxX6rwYyNosq8/UDG6oUHRS5t2YHo/cy8aXK0v0hcZ3OXrsEcDfDvrsRXPIxHL9Y nsbxnIkqmYOv/DSZ6Ez01u9OIMBOHmGrpDxVms0r1Dm5t6EOpekGhUxs6mVo+zAzfwO4 XF9gj0/XVkr9pxrdvd5E5zgVTzFODiyye7nJ6LIeNbunnLEnX3Qb9FyEgtl+wy+pcSaS XdQnICaM+Fp+p5RmnCn1S7jkdpqKB5UUjZ7NShS3K2dAUTEUQQg+Ez2veo1FylRUW0vh 2aYQ==
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=Eh/9BZuwbXWdYz5dEx/7BnOyGQLl55wUV9UfkQCeh38=; b=Ge88IP+All1jCpbDB8EfWLdHHs9OdLNFe8ZDfr8A4I0V1ZA6J8xZ0dj6RPbE7uGLfu 4hkoonP2HsXJvLtJLte7H9R0F5LPcz+04itOsMysl6XDkf4DAraShgHu2x9xi8IvHJbl SE4Hyc9pIyh8Mh4g0wetXKzm5+iztdsLDB7RWntL0CZIw/70XqyYwwrSXs0KPFGn682i zk5oARFaO1zNJkcUF/pEeSQ49x2C+xJrdFuMoHlsWENQkN9BAe4+2YEvbn4CwD+36qlx 2rj/K1sUljOJXfI41oOBRV02UdbifBHNfSxTM4vcDoohwrKEhGkRk7+6foakp81K7bri 38cw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530NU8+5/PyBlp3ZeD2DIwl8Qr3HN/0dA3igK1Qsyf6XkiHYv4EG SNqMl8azzeien3UaDCqvkA3HTCmaGiWKPr6iiiqiNrhkEgdgTg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/iLXaFtANSzXuAuYYeJEaJ0C+/u06HZwTySIUJFAN+lfP93n+oWFTLgdZDifBsG4c0ysWTNrJ6ZRlAa2Jhv4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:1502:b0:612:9531:931 with SMTP id g2-20020a056602150200b0061295310931mr11553183iow.169.1647938873935; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dhruv Dhody <>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:17:17 +0530
Message-ID: <>
To: Greg Mirsky <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000314bee05dacaabf9"
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 08:47:57 -0000

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.


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