Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-gray-sampled-streaming-00.txt

["Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:45, Gray, Andrew A <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello opsawg,
> 
> I spoke to a number of IETF folks at IETF 105, along with Tianran and Ignas (who I thank for their feedback and suggestions), and it was decided that opsawg would be the best place to at least start the conversations about a new draft I am proposing, as detailed below.
> 
> I document several use cases in the draft, but the short version is we are wanting to standardize a method for different vendors to handle ASIC-level replication of packets, to a remote server, including any and all information that ASIC may have about the packet, along with at least part of the payload, with a configurable sampling rate and filtering capabilities.
> 
> Some things on my TODO list for it still:
> 
> 1. I want to take a closer look at Flowspec rule definition, and see if that can be adequately encoded here.  It looks like the YANG model for Flowspec rules was draft-wu-idr-flowspec-yang-cfg but that has since expired.
> 2. I'm planning on talking at NANOG 77 in Austin with other operators to see if there's additional use cases and how much appetite there is.
> 3. I'm talking with a couple vendors about implementations - there is interest here about it as well.
> 
> I am sending out the -00 version of this draft and very much welcome comments and feedback.  

Hello, Andrew.  I’ve read through this draft, and I have a few comments.  I put it up in GitHub to make it a bit easier.  In addition to your TODO, I know Cisco proposed ERSPAN to the IETF a few years ago, but I do not know what the discussion was around that (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foschiano-erspan-03).  Conceptually, your idea seems very similar.  It is perhaps worth exploring what happened with that work. 

More to the contents of your doc, you have it marked informational, but you mention a few times about standardizing the interactions between components.  You’re not standardizing as much as you’re defining a specific interaction.

In https://github.com/xorrkaz/ietf-docs/blob/master/draft-gray-sampled-streaming-00#L195 you mention NETCONF explicitly.  Why can’t this be done with RESTCONF, gRPC, etc.?

In https://github.com/xorrkaz/ietf-docs/blob/master/draft-gray-sampled-streaming-00#L249, why must a Client re-query?  This seems like telemetry would be ideal to update the Client about configuration changes to the stream.

https://github.com/xorrkaz/ietf-docs/blob/master/draft-gray-sampled-streaming-00#L298, are these bit widths or byte?  Either way, they seem too short for things like an interface-ref list.  If it is bit width, then it wouldn’t even be long enough for a list of actions.

https://github.com/xorrkaz/ietf-docs/blob/master/draft-gray-sampled-streaming-00#L309, if this is 24 bytes, that seems excessive for two 32-bit integers.  If it’s bits, it’s not long enough.

I have other more typographical comments at https://github.com/xorrkaz/ietf-docs/commit/7a849d2b12cd2dff151654f3ef37a87ac870a452#diff-580cadc3568cc3a979bb37410222e08b .

Joe