IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] IETF 106 Discussion about draft-gray-sampled-streaming - room moved

"Gray, Andrew A" <Andrew.Gray@charter.com> Fri, 22 November 2019 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Andrew.Gray@charter.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 057AA120912 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:09:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1yHeVBDrlwvK for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:09:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.chartercom.com (nce.mail.chartercom.com [142.136.234.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B272120958 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:09:10 -0800 (PST)
IronPort-SDR: thRXwlyevbqllZCrdFn7ZnpwFIKPQBI55BwhZbqzY5ssU01DHta9h7OGhZ312BXkGuWpsHe9YH WOASi9wrRrKA==
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,228,1571720400"; d="scan'208";a="79508433"
Received: from unknown (HELO NCEMEXGP011.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com) ([142.136.234.156]) by mail.chartercom.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2019 20:09:09 -0600
Received: from NCEMEXGP011.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM (2002:8e88:ea10::8e88:ea10) by NCEMEXGP011.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com (2002:8e88:ea10::8e88:ea10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:09:08 -0600
Received: from NCEMEXGP011.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM ([fe80::e832:53f4:2a29:ec5f]) by NCEMEXGP011.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com ([fe80::e832:53f4:2a29:ec5f%19]) with mapi id 15.00.1365.000; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:09:08 -0600
From: "Gray, Andrew A" <Andrew.Gray@charter.com>
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
CC: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] IETF 106 Discussion about draft-gray-sampled-streaming - room moved
Thread-Index: AQHVn1iS+pL2JOzKAkehvqQJmtL70aeXWzsA//8YDACAAOxdgA==
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:09:08 +0000
Message-ID: <7F38D321-4EF5-4C74-A0B2-0DB88201580C@charter.com>
References: <5D45EBA8-4DD3-420C-A91A-AA804D6216B4@charter.com> <FF8B80EE-40CD-4D52-A83D-21484A609151@charter.com> <8FD4212E-DA2F-4098-BD64-692FB48A4DB1@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8FD4212E-DA2F-4098-BD64-692FB48A4DB1@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [142.136.234.123]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <83DEDB075BD16F428DBA2AFB44EFDF91@chartercom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ryCzgzY3lI-Ob75pWviIIPQRM8A>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] IETF 106 Discussion about draft-gray-sampled-streaming - room moved
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:09:15 -0000

On 11/22/19, 10:03 AM, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com> wrote:

    > - Freeform performance penalty (points?) - finger in the wind numbers (make sure to emphasize that it is an estimate) - include things like other resources used (CAM entries, memory, etc?).  Number would only be relative to the device itself.
    
    I had to leave around this discussion, but I really wasn’t following why this would be better than straight forwarding capacity.  That is, an overall “points” value doesn’t necessarily help much since some may care about CAM space and some may care about forwarding capacity, but they don’t know how the points break down.  Like Frank, I’d like to stick to something simple and more well-defined like forwarding capacity.

AG: After pondering this overnight, I think I agree with this.  Coming up with a number, while possible, isn't really meaningful.  Operators generally expect turning additional options on reduce the capacity for other items as it stands.
    
    > - Informational or Standards track?
    
    It’s informational now, and I have no problem with that given the looseness in the draft.  As it evolves, it may be better to move it to Standards.  I think it should stay where it is for now.
    
AG: I'll leave it Informational for the moment then, but I agree I think Standards probably should be its eventual home.  I had some feedback to split up the draft between defining the model defining the data exchange, and a separate draft talking about the command and control aspect, which may change this up somewhat.  Thoughts?
    

E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email