Re: [OPSAWG] draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark
Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@gmail.com> Sun, 24 March 2024 18:51 UTC
Return-Path: <cpignata@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E041EC14F6F1 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q-Cz5PU-ehY5 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oo1-xc29.google.com (mail-oo1-xc29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B04CC151063 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oo1-xc29.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5a5272035d3so1047222eaf.1 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1711306295; x=1711911095; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ePp5Ym36a9UOWG2Sv/9cFglleYRiBXZcpMlzQMW5scw=; b=GxFZkSRp0ZLJEWdy8bo5/FCKuTAnh4ffxxigCzk1YvdBFEGJPt/clEdlESNjy3HMW3 rXQyetHKLnG4fxVT3AWLth++JqS8TpjEISeHDFFohBYSqYtJqYlB7eIl6frJAnOnnMc5 T48KQa1srAg+t902QtSMUN+fQB8rjpwODC1m8+tO1DXketTjhBxcFAhFwTLzTboCPOka l5Biw0t2gJHxfY5DBkmOwx0jP3lJ9srWb/ecmJBQpL5JjPMRHJPQx7Gy2JW2yIHhrxtu uvNud1YKSAmTAsKnK56fjtuoI5S9t34JpQnTGGLlYfwQ+5AZNfxHVXHV9uGyHSLd7p7J JROQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711306295; x=1711911095; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ePp5Ym36a9UOWG2Sv/9cFglleYRiBXZcpMlzQMW5scw=; b=sLJy6G4k75PoiUOE0SSiTVoIWdrAWxFeqtrNyWLr20q64i2icYoM6oGWI5VBLwYl5x R3W4iH1KO9fStNyQxTDA2xfP+1yNGHmzH14IdNTDlOnufU8zT4zq4pkw3vAxucmbodXN lLhKc5nzK05jyGt8eIbkZAb2AZNkRTnJ5shXgAuphvXD2brazrNeNBMAiG4YGQHivLDS P4/t3mxuUmmoA9SqKLvLAwQWfSHDf1kOeTNUiDKQCRBWZzFELXmTRSpo7C6sBb8hiUEL FzqvtpZDIBC/NeEbmljVkzocQn/LsxpzmioiF97kcBazVdCkqn+MzVxDzIWPuO8ApfIV h6MQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWXQU4hRuzsiS5LchDLDLBTXfcvGAmyROsf8ntCOmtvxJKxjbfGRR3t5YJ/dUXVRCKO5mHxAUnMpOt7m0NY4+Y=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz0SR2AEGBoX5vAllXfrEsvbH9YTl7DYYnKyduzemBf+32qkpcR 9uV9OrZIXJM+rYHGaCvn1LL4tkorMFdnxzwHlhm0FMvATt27sFz8
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGIsis2XTYW1QNOx9RpJtL/AZNvvgJFI1/JxxwUWgB3bucJFNuHMpTJP3hBufWdBlP5kt3XGQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6820:3096:b0:5a5:23fb:4477 with SMTP id eu22-20020a056820309600b005a523fb4477mr5052058oob.2.1711306295041; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (2603-6080-1201-7e2f-241f-3e1d-ed08-c453.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:6080:1201:7e2f:241f:3e1d:ed08:c453]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cm17-20020a05622a251100b0042f43a486c9sm1832974qtb.77.2024.03.24.11.51.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <042972CE-B74E-4050-B1CE-3B97EA45B437@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9513ACDB-8868-4A6D-90F8-C559E8B845F7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 14:49:47 -0400
In-Reply-To: <B1655541-A264-4E26-9016-17F9DB435249@insa-lyon.fr>
Cc: "Thomas.Graf" <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Ops Area WG <opsawg@ietf.org>
To: Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>
References: <61057ae96b744ef19ded9a6e84883325@swisscom.com> <B1655541-A264-4E26-9016-17F9DB435249@insa-lyon.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/615bDJpU7ms5K6roADn8-Hob8jA>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 18:51:50 -0000
Many thanks Thomas and Alex, both for the support, as well as for the useful suggestions. Alex, “on-path” is much more descriptive than “in-band” for sure! Thomas, Alex, will send an iteration of the draft incorporating the Node Type suggestion. (BTW, I think you meant rfc9197 or rfc9359 instead of rfc 9398?) Thanks! Carlos. > On Mar 18, 2024, at 2:55 AM, Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr> wrote: > > Dear Carlos and Adrian, > > As I said in the chat during the OPSAWG meeting, I also support this document. > I don’t have a lot of specific examples of how the terminology are confusing, but I am co-authoring draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry where it started as an inband telemetry protocol and then we were asked to change this terminology to “on-path telemetry protocol”. > Also I haven’t been able to find a clear formal definition of “on-path telemetry protocol”. > > Thanks for the document, > Alex > >> On 18 Mar 2024, at 15:32, Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com wrote: >> >> Dear Carlos and Adrian, >> >> As the author of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry, I care and value that you are defining OAM terminology. This is much needed. Count me on the list of people who misused the term inband previously. >> >> I would appreciate of you could add also OAM node type. As an example in RFC 9398 for IOAM the following types are defined >> >> IOAM encapsulation node >> IOAM transit node >> IOAM decapsulation node >> >> It would be very useful to have an OAM protocol agnostic terminology. >> >> Best wishes >> Thomas >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> OPSAWG@ietf.org <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
- [OPSAWG] draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-questi… Thomas.Graf
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-qu… Alex Huang Feng
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-qu… Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-qu… Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-qu… Carlos Pignataro