IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark

Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr> Mon, 18 March 2024 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>
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 9BD8FC14F616 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.438 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH=2.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=insa-lyon.fr
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 jUGC19ORQBPu for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout01-ext2.partage.renater.fr (smtpout01-ext2.partage.renater.fr [194.254.240.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 270D3C14CE3F for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmtaauth01.partage.renater.fr (zmtaauth01.partage.renater.fr [194.254.240.25]) by smtpout10.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1502E70768; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:55:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from zmtaauth01.partage.renater.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmtaauth01.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09C1B1400EA; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:55:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmtaauth01.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB761400EC; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:55:37 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zmtaauth01.partage.renater.fr EBB761400EC
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=insa-lyon.fr; s=CB289C06-95B8-49FE-9C4B-D197C6D2E7CB; t=1710744937; bh=SytGI4uOVt59A13ho8VrNg8Ug0tsWjxfEDZQiNFjIJw=; h=From:Message-Id:Mime-Version:Date:To; b=J54mKcZoDXXwKCJg4xDJ2P1zPVooa4hg9Ucvsct6Bk+CdEbdFfGdZBd6Ro6AnHjsN n+19Egti7j7FTtaDgl1l1WmiU7EJoWeXCLyHfv75O13TYmIaNdhmGlElqLiAPSZwiR MGufiib+aykfmN0gNTCGVXA08t1eb+9DumPxNsTgI5nsdxyVVLWMnM/NnttLlUOqJN kb1+pgppqxPWr5bvpIuISqzHd8pO/zLFlZpkLroi44vv/VrxQ5IMk6JG7YunvrnB2H XiZRvYF947YtXLIbxFoT0C8EBQs7w6+/22eO6E4VN6VDHiuizDzVaPAkCyOknkgCSh 63NPIlnQXz55w==
Received: from zmtaauth01.partage.renater.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmtaauth01.partage.renater.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10026) with ESMTP id RXUCP2iXggWA; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:55:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 150.100.50.77 (unknown [194.254.241.249]) by zmtaauth01.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 966EA1400EA; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:55:36 +0100 (CET)
From: Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>
Message-Id: <B1655541-A264-4E26-9016-17F9DB435249@insa-lyon.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A2FBFD7C-61A7-4139-A1F7-3190415EBF0C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\))
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:55:24 +0900
In-Reply-To: <61057ae96b744ef19ded9a6e84883325@swisscom.com>
Cc: cmpignat@ncsu.edu, adrian@olddog.co.uk, cpignata@gmail.com, opsawg@ietf.org
To: "Thomas.Graf" <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>
References: <61057ae96b744ef19ded9a6e84883325@swisscom.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.8 at clamav03
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamState: clean
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamScore: 0
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamCause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrkeeigddutddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecutffgpfetvffgtfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhkfgtggfuffgjvefvfhfosegrtdhmrehhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhgvgicujfhurghnghcuhfgvnhhguceorghlvgigrdhhuhgrnhhgqdhfvghnghesihhnshgrqdhlhihonhdrfhhrqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekgeegveetffeitdeuueekudeivdevheefledthfeiteektefghfekgedthfehfeenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppeduleegrddvheegrddvgedurddvgeelnecuuegrugftvghpuhhtkfhppeduleegrddvheegrddvgedurddvgeelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepudelgedrvdehgedrvdeguddrvdegledphhgvlhhopeduhedtrddutddtrdehtddrjeejpdhmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlvgigrdhhuhgrnhhgqdhfvghnghesihhnshgrqdhlhihonhdrfhhrpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeehpdhrtghpthhtohepvfhhohhmrghsrdfirhgrfhesshifihhsshgtohhmrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoheptghmphhighhnrghtsehntghsuhdrvgguuhdprhgtphhtthhopegrughrihgrnhesohhlugguohhgrdgtohdruhhkpdhrtghpthhtoheptghpihhgnhgrthgrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohep ohhpshgrfihgsehivghtfhdrohhrgh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/T2pFrk1H1LqForJPL6g2GVMRO-E>
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:55:51 -0000

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

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status