IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 15 April 2024 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 E98BFC14F6A4 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.397 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=sandelman.ca
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 OIGE0FsPHwJh for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 E1965C14F69E for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73CC23898B; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:54:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3AcHfhNUfE_h; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959E438988; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1713196460; bh=A+YGy3U//XpCh7oC/KSERAcfkVK262tS60Vf4974TQA=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=gXqKRgsVXCsFv459yE5pwxPGe8xZjpqBCiDyeK/uHIKtC0BPa4OKVo6zELIU/qSEW mp1C8EkFXe6o9F+VNQ88R0zS5dZ+GfCcCxVVROMdbk3TGfi1Sj87LUXbmr6JPv7BHb CJsMM+rzbQ4WKsgWeopmg818cS7Jqp205oL3PrHGzEiLMBDb4g1B8D1pATU0GfZbdX P+HJf9Q4yhNMW0cvrkpTMPk41tEQtJvwNDqxzKLk9wbOX85/5RZEocCIwSb/VXC4rL nYy7DfB4iTZT1rxeM4dUC75HTkICN29sEEVEKsfHNZ37vR+SCU/y42uFkWxaiB+iEH DEDXmkvVPCq5g==
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9104FE5; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@gmail.com>, OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmUSa00f9U2iHecBMPLGqoLpGidPytEpzxCAn6vuMhL+TA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d75cddf8-8872-cb2e-fb13-82e2d978c9bb@ietf.contact> <CA+RyBmXz9wHOq_R1u5Mv8fnjEQs11Xgn-x+2oxgtTjQ6oYi=0A@mail.gmail.com> <CACe62MkoBQy-1rXte8itwRiKzc8-obkSn5TnhicZFMcfG0vXFA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmUSa00f9U2iHecBMPLGqoLpGidPytEpzxCAn6vuMhL+TA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:54:20 -0400
Message-ID: <31411.1713196460@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ES5SmStoVGoG0xMNMOn2Ewv182w>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:54:52 -0000

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I have to repeat that the definitions of terms "in-band OAM", "out-of-band
    > OAM", and "on-path telemetry"

    > In-band OAM:  an active OAM method that is in band within the
    > monitored DetNet OAM domain when it traverses the same set of
    > links and interfaces receiving the same QoS and Packet
    > Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) treatment
    > as the monitored DetNet flow.

    > Out-of-band OAM:  an active OAM method whose path through the DetNet
    > domain may not be topologically identical to the path of the
    > monitored DetNet flow, its test packets may receive different QoS
    > and/or PREOF treatment, or both.

On the topic of RFC8994's overlay management network, which we described as
virtual out-of-band.  It would seem to fit into the above definition, since
the overlay packets might go another route, and might get a different QoS
treatment.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email