Alvaro, It is great to see a mailing list being created for interested parties to discuss.
Question on the objectives of the mailing list: In-situ OAM (IOAM) provides real-time telemetry of individual data packets and flows. It is based on telemetry information which is embedded along within data packets So the key differences between In-situ OAM and BFD is that BFD uses synthetic data packets (i.e. dedicated OAM packets), whereas In-situ OAM are encoded into the user data packets. Correct? Does it mean “Telemetry information that doesn’t have user payload” is out of the scope? Thanks, Linda From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana) Sent: 2017年1月30日 14:10 To: Bert Wijnen (IETF) <berti...@bwijnen.net>; rtg-...@ietf.org Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts Bert: As Frank indicated, the new i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> list will be used for discussion: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam If you have suggestions about possible Chairs, or want to volunteer, please let me know. The current intent is to charter a WG by IETF 98. Given the discussions on this list, we believe there is interest in the problem space and in defining a solution. Thanks!! Alvaro. On 1/24/17, 4:00 AM, "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <berti...@bwijnen.net<mailto:berti...@bwijnen.net>> wrote: - Where will you send the proposed charter for discussion? Both OPS and RTG area mailing lists (or maybe OPSAWG instead of OPS)? - Are you gonna do a call for volunteers to co-chair the WG? - It sounds like you are not gonna do a BOF first, right? that is OK with me.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
