Dear all,
I support WG adoption. Obviously, since I am a co-author you may say.
Sure, but let me stress one important aspect in this work. This would be
the first draft that would specify an IPFIX IE that would also be a
performance metric.
When we initiated what became RFC 8911 (registry for performance
metrics) a couple of years ago, this was exactly the intent: not only
have active metrics in the registry but also passive and even hybrid
measurement method (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7799#section-3.8)
metrics.
Basically this draft links, for the first time, two IANA registries (the
IPFIX and the performance metrics), specifying a metric in both.
Note that the authors are in discussion with performance metrics expert
(from the performance metric directorate) to make this right.
Regards, Benoit
On 12/22/2022 3:25 AM, Tianran Zhou 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
