Re: [OPSAWG] A review of draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-16

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian, authors, WG,

Warren, Martin Duke, and I looked at this document almost 2 years back, noted that the work that it is describing seemed to be close to work chartered in IPPM WG, and hence recommended to the authors, via Tianran, that this work should be presented to IPPM to see if there is interest on working on any protocols or protocol changes related to the framework.  Authors, do you know if that has happened?  And if so, what was the feedback reviewed from IPPM please?

If IPPM doesn't want to take up this work, or doesn't think that it falls within their charter, and if the authors are still interested then I would encourage the proponents to consider doing side meetings or a BOF on the solution to see if they can build is wider interest for standardizing it within the IETF.

Finally, when reading this document, I find the document content to be very abstract, and I struggle to get to the meat of what it is actually describing or defining beyond what is already described in the NTF draft related to general telemetry and full lifecycle monitoring.  As it stands, I struggle to see how this document fits into the OPSAWG charter.  It may be that standardizing some of the concrete protocol parts first, or in parallel to the framework document may end up with a more widely applicable standard.

Thanks,
Rob


-----Original Message-----
From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 19 February 2022 15:55
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [OPSAWG] A review of draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-16

Hi,

I reviewed -09 of this draft at the time of the inconclusive adoption poll
back in December 2019. A lot of changes have been made since then,
including updates for my previous comments.

As the document appears to be somewhat stalled, I asked the chairs what
they thought the status was, and they said that the work is not shut
down, but they noted that the mailing list has been very quiet on the
subject. This is possibly because we're all waiting to find out what
happens next.

Anyway, as a way of showing my continued interest in this document, I
have reviewed the current revision (-16). I hope these comments prove
useful to the authors.

I have shown my edits and comments in line with the document, attached.
While there are a lot of comments, I don't think any of these couldn't
have been worked on for a working group draft. But let's continue the
work with this draft and get it into a better shape.

One comment here rather than in the document: You talk about adding 
in-situ OAM to IPv4 encapsulations. I can, of course, see the benefit of
this for operators carrying IPv4 traffic. But I wonder how that runs 
into the IETF's policy with regard to extending IPv4. Certainly your
reference to draft-herbert-ipv4-eh is a bit dubious given how that work
appears to have been abandoned. Of course, encapsulations under the IPv4
header are a totally different thing.

Best,
Adrian