Re: [ippm] Follow-up on Error Performance Measurement presentation at IETF-110 Thu, 20 May 2021 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545E93A2955; Wed, 19 May 2021 19:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dCmCDWa6p0fC; Wed, 19 May 2021 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 646F93A28D0; Wed, 19 May 2021 19:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 2814CEB4EF422F30146C; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:21:51 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id 14K2LlFZ075800; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:21:47 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (mgapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid81; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:21:47 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 10:21:47 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af960a5c7bbf95ebeaa
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: 14K2LlFZ075800
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Follow-up on Error Performance Measurement presentation at IETF-110
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: Thu, 20 May 2021 02:22:00 -0000

Hi Yali,

thank you for your interest in the Integrated OAM, much appreciated.

Please find my notes in-line below tagged GIM>>.


Greg Mirsky

Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division


Original Mail

Sender: Wangyali(Yali,DataCommunicationStandardsandPatentsDept)
Date: 2021/05/17 06:08
Subject: Re: [ippm] Follow-up on Error Performance Measurement presentation at IETF-110

ippm mailing list


Hi Greg,


After reading these draft, which are interesting to me, I have following considerations.


1)      Is the Integrated OAM defined as a new protocol? Otherwise this draft is intent to extend the BFD specified in RFC5880?

GIM>> You're right, we've started this work as the extension of BFD. After discussing it in the BFD WG, we've decided that a new protocol is more appropriate format. Of course, in the foundation of the Integrated OAM are RFC 5880 and RFC 6374 with the addition of the capability negotiation, fine-grain authentication and more.

2)      If it’s a new protocol, why not define a new Integrated OAM message independent to BFD, which supports both proactive connectivity check and performance measurement ? For example, directly defining the LM message, DM message or combined LM/DM message in the IntOAM control message body but not as a TLV. While it’s flexible using TLVs.

GIM>> That is an interesting idea that we are open to discuss and explore.

3)      For EPM use case, it may be defined as a TLV in IntOAM control message, right?

GIM>> I think that the EPM might use a new TLV to fetch EPM-specific information, e.g., current EPM state (available or unavailable period. As for the qalification of a time unit, i.e., is it Severely Errored unit (the current version uses a second) or else, that can be defined as a combination of Service Level Objectives, e.g., packet loss ratio, packet delay, that the IntOAM protocol already can do.


From my side, this work is interesting. And willing to work together to advance the IntOAM document.

GIM>> Your most welcome. I am looking forward to working together.





From: rtgwg [] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
 Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 7:04 AM
 Subject: Follow-up on Error Performance Measurement presentation at IETF-110


Dear All,

in the course of presenting our work on the Error Performance Measurement (slides attached), I didn't mention the work on the Integrated OAM. The Integrated OAM work was presented and discussed at the RTGWG session during the IETF-110. We believe that EPM is one of the use cases that highlight the benefits of using the Integrated OAM. We believe that experts from IPPM and RTGWG WGs would be interested to see how the works we've presented are related to each other and help to solve challenges in operating networks.

The authors always welcome your questions, comment, and suggestions.