Re: [OPSAWG] extend the call//RE: WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09

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

On Dec 30, 2019, at 19:32, Haoyu Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

OPSAWG,

Based on the feedbacks from Frank, Al, Adrian, Alex, and others,  I have updated the draft with modifications and new text/figures. The major modifications are summarized as follows.  Please let me know if these addressed your concerns.


  1.  Add a Scope subsection to clarify the scope of the draft.  Basically, the proposed informational framework is nonmandatory. It suggests a high-level framework to address some practical deployment challenges for a class of on-path telemetry techniques. It doesn’t define the component and interface specifications and implementation details.
  2.  Categorize the on-path telemetry techniques discussed in the draft as Hybrid Type I, conforming to RFC7799.
  3.  Detail the description of the framework with clearer term definitions and block diagrams. Add a framework architecture figure. A block diagram is added for each component. Match each component to the corresponding component in Network Telemetry Framework.
  4.  Clarify this work doesn’t conflict or overlap with existing works in other WGs such as IPPM.
  5.  Remove the references to some premature or expired drafts.
  6.  Some document structure adjustments and numerous other modification in response to the detail comments.

Happy new year, Haoyu.  I am still catching up after being away on work and personal travel.  I appreciate your refinement of the draft based on comments.

<hat off>

Rev -10 still wants to straddle this notion of a generic framework and an architecture.  I think you are missing Frank and Alan’s points about the definition of iFIT nodes and applications being unimplementable.  For example, an iFIT application is a network monitoring application that conforms to the iFIT framework.  But how can an app conform to a framework when you’ve stated that this isn’t a strict structure that one can conform to?

In short, why does any of this need special names?  If you’re trying to write a document on how existing elements of OAM fit together, talk about those elements and discuss the implementation challenges of them.  I just don’t see how describing esoteric, unimplementable things helps anyone.

That said, I don’t want to put words into Frank or Alan’s mouths.  I would appreciate their feedback on -10 as well as others that have commented on the list.  I would also like to hear from operators that support this draft on how they are incorporating this work to make their OAM deployments more robust.

Joe



  1.
Happy New Year!

Best,
Haoyu

From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2019 10:14 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [OPSAWG] extend the call//RE: WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09

Working Group,

Thank you for all of your emails related to draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.
It seems there are a lot of interested people. I hope the authors will be encouraged by that.
But there were also some strong concerns about the scope of the draft. What is it trying to achieve? How does that match the charter? Does it include material that is outside its scope? Thanks specially to Frank and Al for saying their concerns.
We are going to extend the adoption call for another two weeks to Jan 8. And we encourage the inter-working group discussion.
Please continue to discuss on the mailing list.

Merry Christmas!
Tianran

From: OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 1:27 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09

Hi WG,

On IETF 106 meeting, we saw predominant interest and support to this draft, especially from operators. The authors then resolved all the open issues.
As requested by the authors, this email starts a 2 weeks working group adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C82e864f485004d8bd61c08d789caeb47%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637129376973095264&sdata=8F%2BqeDNMM3VOrDhvoSZO39rc8U66Rvh94KEgSvMfYz8%3D&reserved=0>

If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be willing to review and help the draft.
If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point to work on, please say why.
This poll will run until Dec 23..

Thanks,
Tianran as co-chair