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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

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
>