Re: [ippm] draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport

Dear all,

On 3/19/2024 10:40 AM, Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com wrote:
>
> Dear Justin, Dear OPSAWG and IPPM working groups
>
> Thanks a lot for the presentation at IPPM. I believe that this work 
> needs further refinement by defining also IPFIX entities for IOAM 
> which allow a decomposition of each IOAM dimension fields, thus 
> enabling IPFIX Flow Aggregation as described in RFC 7015 which is a 
> requirement to scale out for IOAM DEX and Trace Option Type. I believe 
> this should be performed after the working group adoption and me 
> should move forward quickly since IOAM is now getting implemented by 
> vendors and applied by operators.
>
> While shepherding IPFIX at OPSAWG, I noticed that most discussions 
> where around choosing the right data type and aligning with the IPFIX 
> registry. Not so much about exposing the right dimensions from the 
> data plane.
>
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry is already adopted and well 
> progressed at OPSAWG. I suggest that draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport 
> is being adopted together with draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark. With 
> that we are covering both Hybrid Type options developed at IPPM.
>
> In order to pool the IPFIX entity definitions, I believe OPSAWG would 
> be the best place to move with draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport forward.
>
Regardless of the WG (*), I believe those two drafts should be adopted soon.

(*) OPSAWG or IPPM, it doesn't matter too much as we have the right 
expert inputs anyway. I am a little concerned that OPSAWG meeting was 
yesterday, so if we ask for WG adoption, it would be typically at the 
next physical meeting in 4 months. IMO, waiting that long is not required

Regards, Benoit
>
> I would appreciate feedback from IPPM and OPSAWG wherever they share 
> my opinion or not.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Thomas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm