Hi Greg, After reading these draft, which are interesting to me, I have following considerations.
1) Is the Integrated OAM defined as a new protocol? Otherwise this draft is intent to extend the BFD specified in RFC5880? 2) If it’s a new protocol, why not define a new Integrated OAM message independent to BFD, which supports both proactive connectivity check and performance measurement ? For example, directly defining the LM message, DM message or combined LM/DM message in the IntOAM control message body but not as a TLV. While it’s flexible using TLVs. 3) For EPM use case, it may be defined as a TLV in IntOAM control message, right? From my side, this work is interesting. And willing to work together to advance the IntOAM document. Best, Yali From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 7:04 AM To: IETF IPPM WG <[email protected]>; RTGWG <[email protected]> Subject: Follow-up on Error Performance Measurement presentation at IETF-110 Dear All, in the course of presenting our work on the Error Performance Measurement<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-ippm-epm/> (slides attached), I didn't mention the work on the Integrated OAM<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mmm-rtgwg-integrated-oam/>. The Integrated OAM work was presented and discussed at the RTGWG session during the IETF-110. We believe that EPM is one of the use cases that highlight the benefits of using the Integrated OAM. We believe that experts from IPPM and RTGWG WGs would be interested to see how the works we've presented are related to each other and help to solve challenges in operating networks. The authors always welcome your questions, comment, and suggestions. Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
