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

Dhruv Dhody <> Tue, 22 March 2022 04:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2590D3A00E0; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:30:13 -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 5wJMc7Xzfqq9; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 049BF3A00DF; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e9so10940661ilu.9; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:30:06 -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=ataomRfPc/49CgU7F58ZDDatawntwlPKOHjMVkK8TgM=; b=I7pvMPrFhXg0ZaS4QdJWk9AZBa6aui2yRy5iwxXJA5k2CnMk/1XWzSt1V4J0CrJEA3 Q/3cEidxnw3RpjNheAZJNovUeN6EWcO8YITJpvTR0XlWuKXj1yfRXOoczAAqeQ9PkMnG VS3+FZ9bDdbO//hQ2k1n8b4TXRjg8BMUUsa8bHRis6u7CCDIC5XWeamXPKWPnXhZwutO u1wSqe2PEHw7cY+AzPW+7XhnJQj5EoshYV67pSMpfxyhJTM8s4WiU6IxmUOFM5dHeYsS r+z7cuGZJA/TWyTY8N49BcFKcRwe5bLlIwJPKtKOMc3GtHFp10rAtZYWk6JRVTK6RRhm q4wg==
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=ataomRfPc/49CgU7F58ZDDatawntwlPKOHjMVkK8TgM=; b=8QUnBGKL+yGGhqLRhyGQiNz9gaTiY0J911IPCo8fOGbkcT5i2aVAXgeJ3A9vyBNwct Jfall8dm2kfRu1gm5DWAcICLJNS8bkLC6bcj3bnntFypouheJUZnsnR7oVDsOtrIigEx Caq4tpmfRt+Gy6WUSpg5MXwrBAZFYvchnfZTRGsKM09Q9c3STM1lb79MvQ1LKr5fChKa MwHhJ3dEBblxHUjeX3kFIzuKqopkgIxMRc4Pr7nAlUG5IF5NsxW3tECdCB+aofzmRFhP RDMafECoZCX2GyiH1T4km/BJk1IKtBU4D+egPVnZzhXyCssb5HknYoigTABbwhwyy6EE h3zA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532UV/oh40RJhocf7lnR898/oXWO7bNc8vidk2nR2Bw2QQn89Cjf IkJqwDbF17Mf6+SQY5nBAZZxKrxahNnxuHzVNQ0svEGo7xs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxE02BhVZ1n3Ih2N2aJjstiSEhgM4MgUsdG/eB1Su7TdUS0UcA+j00bEq7VGRW55gxmqdZax2L8UmrlWIJgo28=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1449:b0:2c7:be12:31ae with SMTP id p9-20020a056e02144900b002c7be1231aemr11676195ilo.216.1647923405738; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dhruv Dhody <>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:59:29 +0530
Message-ID: <>
To: Greg Mirsky <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000037564c05dac71148"
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 04:30:14 -0000

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 :)


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