Re: [Raw] Call for adoption of draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-01

[Janos Farkas <[e-mail]>]

Dear Fabrice and Pascal,

Perhaps, I have not elaborated my points too much.

I of course also see a lot of value in collecting the OAM requirements for RAW. It is just not obvious to me that this draft is a collection of RAW OAM requirements. For instance, the title is not "OAM Requirements" or alike.

A requirements document is listed among the RAW milestones.
OAM requirements, clearly phrased as OAM requirements, could be part of the RAW requirements document.
I understand this is an early draft. Given the comments, maybe updated text could be good input to RAW requirements document.

Best regards,
Janos


-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 11:25 AM
To: Fabrice Theoleyre <[e-mail]>; Janos Farkas <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Rick Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Raw] Call for adoption of draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-01

Dear all
> > The intended status of the draft is Standards Track. It includes 
> > conformance
> language, e.g.,:
> > " The ping packets must be labeled in the same way as the data 
> > packets of
> the flow to monitor."
> > " These metrics should be collected:”
> 
> Yes, this is something we have to address.

Well that language can be found in informational as well; if it must it must, fact of life that can be observed and described in an informational. Publishing as informational for all I know does not preclude such language. Note that this is not using BCP 14.


> 
> > To me, the draft seems to be solution, hence, outside of the current 
> > RAW
> charter.
> 
> Actually, we have tried to explain the challenges created by 
> implementing OAM with RAW networks. We tried to not detail a given 
> solution. While we point to existing works for each of ”challenge”, we 
> don’t recommend a specific one.
> 
> Anyway, maintaining an informational status was our objective. If the 
> draft is too ”solution oriented” in some parts, this is probably 
> something we can address.
> Let us know the incriminated parts.
> 

God for me then... 
I'm happy that RAW works on this draft for now to ensure that the RAW angle is described in full.
It is up to the chairs and ADs to transfer or kindly ask for reviews from DetNet at any stage if that can help. 

Be safe!

Pascal
> 
> 
> >
> > Thinking then on:
> > 1) Is the RAW working group the correct WG for this work?
> > Also in the RAW charter:
> > " RAW extends the DetNet Working Group concepts"
> > As I understand, RAW OAM should be an extension of DetNet OAM, not 
> > RAW
> OAM on its own. The draft does not mention or refer to DetNet OAM. 
> Well, DetNet OAM has not been finished yet, but there are drafts for it:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam/
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-detnet-ip-oam/
> > Perhaps the OAM work could be done in the DetNet WG. DetNet OAM 
> > could
> be extended for wireless in the DetNet WG.
> >
> >
> > So, I do not support the adoption of this draft.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Janos
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: RAW <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Rick Taylor
> > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 12:14 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [Raw] Call for adoption of 
> > draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-01
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > The authors of: draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-01 (have asked for a 
> > call
> for working group adoption of their draft.
> >
> > The link to the draft is: 
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-theoleyre-raw-
> oam-support/
> >
> > This is your opportunity to express your opinion.
> >
> > A decision will be made on/after 13th April.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Rick and Eve
> > Co-chairs
> >
> > --
> > RAW mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raw
> >
> > --
> > RAW mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raw
> 
> --
> RAW mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raw