Dear All,
I read the latest version of the draft. I appreciate the work authors put
into making the document clear and easy to read. Proposed IEs are essential
for further developing an out-of-band collection of telemetry information.
I strongly support the adoption of this work by the OPSAWG.
I have two notes to discuss (clearly non-blocking):
- as I understand it, the scope of this document is on reporting
delay-related metrics based on the use of IOAM specifically. Is that
correct understanding? If it is, reflecting that in the title might be
helpful as other op-path telemetry methods, for example, Alternate Marking,
might use a different set of IEs.
- I appreciate you using a picture (Figure 1) to illustrate the use case
for IEs. It might be helpful for an operator to add more information about
how IOAM is expected to be used. For example:
- IOAM Option Types that are applicable to the defined IEs;
- any special considerations using different IOAM Trace Option-Types;
- mandatory IOAM Trace-Type.
Regards,
Greg
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 6:26 PM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=
40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> This mail starts a WG Adoption Call for
> draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/
>
>
>
> Please reply your supports or objections.
>
> We would really appreciate your comments.
>
>
>
> Since there are holidays, this call will last for 3 weeks, and end on
> Thursday, Jan 12, 2023.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tianran (as co-chairs)
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
