Re: [ippm] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-pam-08: (with COMMENT)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zahed,
thank you for the clarification; that helps a lot.
I agree that "end-to-end service" makes it ambiguous and might be
interpreted as an invitation to an ocean boiling party. If we apply
s/end-to-end service levels/service levels/, would it make the text clearer
for a reader?  Note that "end-to-end latency" will remain in the text. WDYT?

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:56 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> and yes, when I understand what does "end-to-end" mean here then I can
> suggest text :-).
>
> //Zahed
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 12:03 PM Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> I am still stack on the concept of "end-to-end" here.
>>
>> What is the scope of this "end-to-end"? if this is used for a service
>> which is deployed in the Internet then we might have multiple networks
>> carrying the flow, to whom the SLO and PAM works then? Very often in Mobile
>> network the end-to-end means, Mobile edge network - gateway router (UPF) to
>> the UE, again in ISPs/transit network we can think about end-to-end between
>> ingress and egress node. In all the cases a flow can be tracked. Hence,
>> here we need to put some context to the definition of the "end-to-end". I
>> might be misunderstanding the whole intention here, in that case please
>> correct me.
>>
>> //Zahed
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 8:03 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Zahed,
>>> thank you for your question. Your question is close to the question
>>> Roman raised in his review
>>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/aIYEZqKUUyFNjooQGM8TQE1cwTk/>.
>>> To address Roman's comment the sentence edited in the working version as
>>> follows:
>>> NEW TEXT:
>>>    This specification introduces a new set of metrics, Precision
>>>    Availability Metrics (PAM), aimed at capturing end-to-end service
>>>    levels for a flow, specifically the degree to which the flow complies
>>>    with the SLOs that are in effect.
>>> Our intention is to stress that PAM is used to monitor a flow and
>>> reflects its conformance to the SLOs. A service, in this model, may include
>>> one or more flows, and hence, each flow might be characterized using PAM
>>> according to the set of SLOs. Would you suggest any text update to further
>>> clarify that relationship? I will upload the new version with updates
>>> addressing all comments received in the course of IESG discussions.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:45 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-pam-08: No Objection
>>>>
>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please refer to
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
>>>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-pam/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for working on this specification.
>>>>
>>>> Even though I get the SLO idea, but this specification says
>>>>
>>>>    Precision Availability Metrics (PAM), aimed at capturing end-to-end
>>>> service
>>>>    levels for a flow, specifically the degree to which flows comply
>>>> with the
>>>>    SLOs that are in effect.
>>>>
>>>> and I am not sure I get how PAM executes on the end-to-end service
>>>> levels or
>>>> what does the "end-to-end" mean in this context. I think it would good
>>>> to
>>>> clarify that aspect in this document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>