Re: [ippm] Request for WG adoption

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Wed, 14 July 2021 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6743A12CD; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id umsgDkOAkGXM; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1BD03A12C4; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id p186so3310182iod.13; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DnB2Y5kqmdmGJ84sUzPAE23BhbZK4N2gjBrtAM4gu4U=; b=AQq0Hd+V7cDt/7fbV6KjY1W92o1M1tBJyi8rsdKvg0KDIe+h7x+R7yKDYdM20oAO5z 5pHZjMv1o3aIDRUscs6FI6QuXXUrfd/7ei+zM7q27HX/b9oc4i3TJXKvk+elNQdXYKGi t5aye4xoaOvMQn9RE2FZklf1Czt6SknJz94NMQGIJHgGcPPSfNxh3f8r+ODM2G7RaQKL NM0wmWgH8yzcWTQ6w0OJmRjRON1mIDdSLu9G4Z8TMO0KK4sAnI7msWnMMrrdpESZTyKT wivnxZlaqHdBA9mg4CgNSBQqqwMB611JABuXkMO3CqOQiALFQXY4e6A9HQnps8cGS8Z5 0YRA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DnB2Y5kqmdmGJ84sUzPAE23BhbZK4N2gjBrtAM4gu4U=; b=Zj5rtD+zFV7ZIzye31JGX/MwtrUB6nMy+maCK1RT36xlm9YvySMMsXAIiwTLcsx6SG K63XRL9fMgbUjAXKBGMklAaGblFvXQYTVeqC1C3pHvnei1zdMQ6NadWp4M2gza6n8hQj mQbWSeWPHaQAh3lZJTd8tU8O8ybXIuhqhcN5boQO+AHS++pyDAR1WcsItJuD8jBtBgnJ 7eAvrVQphwGlR2VXLaD+ip6dvZ1uTJfq8mcVlAHzbOKB81lHk+TR0ih408QAuWdgZVrR qYH92v3huJryorvA8HJB2FqBLHa5S6Pa3lGspWoclhwnV6dQyrLdSZpNbIgmKtMSUdaI hcWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531eSb9/jmCIMzeuQKfWVXrhToE5iNVSkYoCTaMAB1STjHdBiYCx Qr0EFJX/hWg6gDvfG9jLsiir5z8nibcrt1+/ptY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzMjv/8qsVm5dNyaeQR0R7jY5F5j12XcSekz5uCA9PEp64LMFYm/ycN+U3ILIqrnt4UUXUP9gl2rtDSfwcoxw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:268d:: with SMTP id o13mr10124321jat.103.1626287467347; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BY3PR13MB47872479EB11E92CB77F69CD9A019@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <0CFF75C4-3142-46A2-838C-27B79A36D794@apple.com> <BY3PR13MB47877D84B2FB84B6499AD6E89A009@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BY3PR13MB4787FF752DD19D3AFD114E169A189@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BY3PR13MB4787A5AD441B628A181EC23C9A189@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <YOzY6F40bB4jQYki@spectre>
In-Reply-To: <YOzY6F40bB4jQYki@spectre>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:30:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxTAK=F6o0yUPO4knKB4sWqmdV+ysjVk6odVcfD+zeRmFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pedro Martinez-Julia <pedro@nict.go.jp>
Cc: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>, "draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry@ietf.org" <draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry@ietf.org>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb445c05c7198e3a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/l1arsVUNUYRU6ENOSIrZbjdNbzk>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Request for WG adoption
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 18:31:16 -0000

Forgive the strange question, but what is this draft hoping to accomplish?

IIUC it's basically DEX but with the details left to out-of-band
communication rather than a header. So is the intent simply to inform
people that this control-plane approach is something that is happening in
the Internet, and give some advice on how to do it? Or this meant to inform
a future standardization effort?

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 5:06 PM Pedro Martinez-Julia <pedro@nict.go.jp>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have reviewed the draft and I support it to be adopted by IPPM. The
> postcard mechanism and others, such as DEX, are quite different, both in
> terms of requesting telemetry (flagging data traffic) and in terms of
> providing it (incorporated in packets vs direct submission to the
> collector). Therefore, this draft has good base to be evolved as a WG
> draft.
>
> Regards,
> Pedro
>
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 10:49:58PM +0000, Haoyu Song wrote:
> > Dear IPPM chairs,
> >
> > We just published a -10 version of the draft
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry/10/.
> In this draft we focus only on the PBT-M scheme itself and discuss its own
> challenges and solutions.
> > We believe that PBT-M is complementary to the other schemes currently in
> the WG including IOAM trace/E2E/DEX and it should be considered as well.
> Thank you very much for your consideration!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Haoyu
> >
> > From: Haoyu Song
> > Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 11:35 AM
> > To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
> > Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>;
> draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Request for WG adoption
> >
> > Dear IPPM chairs,
> >
> > Could you please suggest what we can do to meet the criteria for a WG
> adoption call?
> > Could you please assign a slot in the coming IETF WG meeting for me to
> present the draft and solicit comments? Thank you very much!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Haoyu
> >
> > From: Haoyu Song
> > Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 10:34 AM
> > To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com<mailto:tpauly@apple.com>>
> > Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:ippm-chairs@ietf.org>>;
> IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>;
> draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry@ietf.org<mailtolto:
> draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry@ietf.org>
> > Subject: RE: Request for WG adoption
> >
> > Hi Tommy,
> >
> > I think here I need to give some clarification. One the one hand, the
> draft indeed provides some descriptions to summarize the high level ideas
> of the related proposals (under the on-path telemetry), but this is not the
> core of the draft but to help understand the field and it can be removed if
> considered improper in such a draft. On the other hand, the core of the
> draft is about the approach to use some flag to trigger the telemetry data
> collection. In this sense, it's an independent proposal along with IOAM,
> DEX, and HTS. I believe they are equally important and needed to complete
> the ecosystem for on-path telemetry.
> >
> > I would also like to take this chance to seek more feedback from the WG
> and to see the level of interest and support on this work. Thanks!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Haoyu
> >
> > From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com<mailto:tpauly@apple.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 9:58 AM
> > To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com<mailto:haoyu.song@futurewei.com
> >>
> > Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:ippm-chairs@ietf.org>>;
> IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>;
> draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry@ietf.org<mailtolto:
> draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption
> >
> > Hi Haoyu,
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up again. As we've discussed in several
> previous meetings, this seems to be mainly a high-level description of work
> that is already concrete in IOAM, DEX, etc. As such, I am inclined to say
> that its content should be in other drafts (as has been done).
> >
> > Any adoption call would need to be predicated on more list discussion of
> the content.
> >
> > Best,
> > Tommy
> >
> > On Jun 30, 2021, at 10:59 AM, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com
> <mailto:haoyu.song@futurewei.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear IPPM Chairs,
> >
> > I'm writing to request the IPPM WG to adopt the following draft
> "Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry using Packet Marking"
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry/
> <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry%2F&data=04%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C4cae751d53a845bc600a08d93cb15fdb%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637607554783193667%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FA57w%2FrWm3TXoEvBCcHT2IPQQJi%2BrcgQwlTvs18EX48%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > Now the draft is in -09 version and we have colleagues from Cisco, ZTE,
> Huawei as well as some network operators to coauthor this work.
> > As another on-path telemetry technique, PBT based on packet marking
> complements the other works such as IOAM, DEX, and HTS to make the
> ecosystem complete, and I believe each can find its application scenarios.
> For example, the PBT based on packet marking has been applied in
> "draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam" (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam<
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam&data=04%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C4cae751d53a845bc600a08d93cb15fdb%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637607554783203623%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=VODdVGhSLsLDmfpWzFWIXltte8A7p2%2FA1okRktL3DMI%3D&reserved=0>)
> which I believe has passed the last call, but the detailed mechanisms such
> as configuration, data format, and export method are not covered there.
> Given the technique is equal
>  ly applicable to other types of networks, we believe it's necessary to
> have a  document to formalized the method.
> >
> > The draft has undergone a long line of developments since it was
> published in 2018. It originally covers two related but different
> techniques. One was latter stripped off to form an independent draft, IOAM
> DEX, which has been adopted by IPPM. The remaining one, PBT based on packet
> marking, is the core of the current draft. Thanks for the numerous
> discussions and feedbacks from the WG, we now have a draft with focused
> direction and relatively mature content.
> >
> > Given the community interest and the technical merit, we now request the
> WG to adopt the draft and engage the WG to work on it.
> > Please let us know if there are any concerns, comments, and
> suggestions.   Thank you very much for your consideration!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Haoyu
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > ippm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
>
> --
> Pedro Martinez-Julia
> Network Architecture Laboratory, Network Research Institute
> National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)
> 4-2-1, Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8795, Japan
> Email: pedro@nict.go.jp
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> *** Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ***
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>