[OPSAWG]Re:  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-00, keeping the content as is, and > resubmit. And then post a -01 that addresses all discussion so far, as these > represent WG feedback already. > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > On 09.05.24 03:08, Carlos Pignataro w

[OPSAWG]Re:  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

t;> - You post email to say, all changes made addressed only the adoption poll >>> comments >>> - You accept the adoption and we follow up per Carlos' plan >>> >>> Let us know. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> A >>> >>

[OPSAWG]Re:  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

ilto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> > Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 at 08:47 > To: 'Henk Birkholz' <mailto:henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>>, 'Carlos Pignataro' <mailto:cpign...@gmail.com>> > Cc: 'OPSAWG' mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> > Subject: [OPSAWG]Re:  WG Adoption Call f

[OPSAWG]Re:  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

Thank you, Henk, for the descriptive and thorough wrap of this adoption call. Like Adrian, I'm also inclined to align with your conclusions, including: - "draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization" WFM -- even when it is much _less_ expressive than the original, IMO ;-) - As the other one

[OPSAWG]Re:  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

{ "emoji": "", "version": 1 }___ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org

Re: [OPSAWG]  IPR Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

Henk, Thanks! I am not aware of any IPR that pertains to draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03. Best, Carlos. > On May 2, 2024, at 11:48 AM, Henk Birkholz wrote: > > Dear authors and contributors, > > as a part of the adoption process, the chairs would also like to issue a >

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

Thank you Loa for reviewing this document again! Much appreciated. Please find some follow-ups inline below On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:46 AM Loa Andersson wrote: > Working Group, Carlos, and Adrian, > > The way I understood draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark, is > that > while it

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

n Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 2:00 PM Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Greg,Thank you for the input.It appears that much of what you write below was already discussed at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/IVQzSSU_kvGgopCyCp-8oqK_xmg/ Am I to understand you might be k

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

Dear Greg, Thank you for the input. It appears that much of what you write below was already discussed at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/IVQzSSU_kvGgopCyCp-8oqK_xmg/ Am I to understand you might be keen on continuing using "in-band OAM" with different meanings depending on the WG

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

Thank you Xiao! All good commends and addressed in the next revision. Carlos. > On Apr 11, 2024, at 11:43 PM, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > I support wg adoption of this draft. > > Responding to the call for discussion by the chairs, I would provide some > comments for the authors

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

Thank you, Henk. I support adoption of this document (as a co-author). As spelled out in the Acknowledgements of this document, its genesis started in this very mailing list with a need for clarification that seemed deja vu. As such, I feel updating RFC 6291 will take clarity to a next level.

Re: [OPSAWG] [IVY] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

Thank you, Jan! I appreciate the clarity and thorough explanation. How is this problem statement you list below (my paraphrasing for simplicity, please correct as needed): (1) "devices can report their energy and/or power usage" (2) "work belongs / is spread across multiple WGs and it is

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

;the time invariably disappears quickly, so I think that we need to >frontload the BOF preparation effort to achieve consensus at IETF 120 for >creating a working group. > > > Anyone else in the side meeting, please feel free to add anything that I > have missed, or correct m

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

d some comments (RW) inline … > > > > *From: *Carlos Pignataro > *Date: *Monday, 25 March 2024 at 21:09 > *To: *Rob Wilton (rwilton) > *Cc: *Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) 40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ops Area WG , E-Impact IETF > , inventory-y...@ietf.org , > Ale

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

n (sureshk) < sure...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > Since your message was sent to Rob, I will let him respond, but I wanted > to chime on some things you said about the e-impact program. > Thanks for this -- the salutation did not imply exclusivity. > > >

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

Many thanks Thomas and Alex, both for the support, as well as for the useful suggestions. Alex, “on-path” is much more descriptive than “in-band” for sure! Thomas, Alex, will send an iteration of the draft incorporating the Node Type suggestion. Thanks! Carlos. > On Mar 18, 2024, at 2:55 

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

iably disappears quickly, so I think that we need to frontload the BOF > preparation effort to achieve consensus at IETF 120 for creating a working > group. > > Anyone else in the side meeting, please feel free to add anything that I have > missed, or correct me, if I have misre

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

+Jari Hello, *Suresh, Jari,* I'm confused by this bullet point: *• next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form a WG Design Team, call for a BOF?* Could you please clarify? I understood there's no WG (and hence no WG coordination nor status), in favor of the IAB Program. There

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

Many thanks Thomas and Alex, both for the support, as well as for the useful suggestions. Alex, “on-path” is much more descriptive than “in-band” for sure! Thomas, Alex, will send an iteration of the draft incorporating the Node Type suggestion. (BTW, I think you meant rfc9197 or rfc9359

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

Many thanks Thomas and Alex, both for the support, as well as for the useful suggestions. Alex, “on-path” is much more descriptive than “in-band” for sure! Thomas, Alex, will send an iteration of the draft incorporating the Node Type suggestion. (BTW, I think you meant rfc9197 or rfc9359

Re: [OPSAWG] New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"

Please note that RFC7799 gives two definitions to Hybrid, and thus some disambiguation is already needed.* *CMP2: To me, your suggestion could be useful but seems an Update to RFC7799 what you are asking.* > > Regards, > > Greg > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 2:41 PM Carlos Pignataro &

Re: [OPSAWG] [mpls] New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM" -review

t; Our intent, therefore, is to select a finer-grained set of terms that > have > >> universal applicability and that can be selected within a context > without > >> loss of generality. > > GIM>> I agree with that wholeheartedly. > >> This is a tricky li

Re: [OPSAWG] New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"

he intent. I would > suggest explicit terms such as: “User Data Embedded OAM” or “OAM-embedded > User Data”. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* OPSAWG *De la part de* Carlos Pignataro > *Envoyé :* vendredi 5 janvier 2024 21:39 >

Re: [OPSAWG] New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"

>> This is a tricky little subject and I know that Carlos and I expected it >> to generate more than a little discussion. If we end up with “everything is >> OK and nothing needs to change” that will be OK with us. If we discover >> that some work is using terms too genera

Re: [OPSAWG] New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"

Many thanks Michael for the review and useful feedback! Please find some follow-ups inline. On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:54 PM Michael Richardson wrote: > > Carlos Pignataro wrote: > > We would appreciate feedback and input on this position, which aims > at > > up

[OPSAWG] New I-D -> Guidelines for Charactering "OAM"

Hi, Ops Area WG, Every now and again, there are discussions on how to best characterize or qualify a particular kind of "OAM", as well as misunderstandings due to having different definitions and contexts for a given term. A case in point is "in-band" or "out-of-band" OAM, as recently surfaced at

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

n are considered.” > 7625 ... and dogged comments on this draft; though some of us > have grew a bit weary of the denial game and allowed ourselves to be > shut up. Or a DDoS against the ideas on this document? > > randy > — Carlos Pignataro, car...@cis

Re: [OPSAWG] Adding Joe Clarke as a chair.

Congratulations Joe, this is excellent news for OPsAWG! On May 24, 2017, at 7:45 AM, Warren Kumari > wrote: Hi all, Benoit and I have been discussing this for a while, and we'd like to announce that we are adding Joe Clarke as an OpsAWG chair. Joe

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

Hi, Linda, Moving the discussion to i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>, other aliases to Bcc. Please see inline. — Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com> “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

Thanks again, Tianran and Adrian. Please find a couple additional comments inline. — Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com> “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis." On Dec 16, 2016, at 1:28 AM,

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

Hi Adrian, Interesting thoughts, please see inline. — Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com> “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis." On Dec 15, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

Hi, Bert, Please find a couple of follow-ups inline. — Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com> “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis." On Dec 14, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) <berti.

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

have a committed number of editors and reviewers. It is Thanks, — Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com> “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis." On Dec 7, 2016, at 1:36 AM, Zhoutianran <zhou

Re: [OPSAWG] MD Type attack (Was: Question regarding Proof of Transit draft)

nt, indeed. The MIIM is one we should expand upon. Thanks! — Carlos. > Thanks, > Tal. > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:51 AM >> To: Tal Mizrahi >>

Re: [OPSAWG] MD Type attack (Was: Question regarding Proof of Transit draft)

— Carlos. > I hope you will elaborate more on the threat model in the next version of the > draft. > > Cheers, > Tal. > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11

[OPSAWG] MD Type attack (Was: Question regarding Proof of Transit draft)

Tal, > On Jul 20, 2016, at 6:30 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > > Hi Sashank, > >> [SD] The attack is valid only if the attacker can get away bypassing a >> service function/node. >> For example, if the attacker bypasses a node and if POT determines it did >> not bypass is a

Re: [OPSAWG] Conflict review on draft-pfaff-ovsdb-proto-02

I agree -- I see no conflict with l2tpext work. -- Carlos. On Aug 19, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Ignacio Goyret i.goy...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote: I don't see any conflict with l2tpext wg work. -Ignacio At 07:43 8/19/2013, Ted Lemon wrote: I've taken on the conflict review for

Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-fan-opsawg-packet-loss-01.txt

conclusion is context dependent. Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows On Aug 6, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Fan, Peng fanp...@chinamobile.com wrote: Hi Ramki, Yes I agree with you on this point. This is also one of the reasons why ICMP may not be a proper way to do performance

Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-fan-opsawg-packet-loss-01.txt

There are two other considerations: 1. ICMP packets might follow a different path than the application in the presence of ECMP 2. The ICMP responder might rate limit and drop if it's a router regardless of the drop characteristics of the path -- RFC 6192. Thanks, Thumb typed by Carlos