[OPSAWG]Re: How to move draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel forward

Thanks Joe and Med. What should we do as next steps? Cheers John From: "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com" Date: Wednesday, 24 July 2024 at 17:48 To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" , "Evans, John" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [OPSAWG]Re: How to move

[OPSAWG]Re: How to move draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel forward

Thanks Joe. In producing this draft, we explored several options to present the information model, including UML. Med suggested representing the information model as an abstracted data model in YANG, leveraging RFC 8791 - YANG Data Structure Extensions. While I'm not an expert in either UML or

[OPSAWG]Re: REQUEST FOR PRESENTATIONS: Opsawg 120 session

Hi Joe, Could I request 10 mins for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel please? Thanks John From: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" Date: Friday, 28 June 2024 at 16:10 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: [OPSAWG]REQUEST FOR PRESENTATIONS: Opsawg 120 session CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the org

[OPSAWG]Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-01.txt

Hi All, We've checked in an updated version of the draft with the following changes: 1. Incorporating feedback from Qin Wu (thanks!) 2. Clarifying terminology and consistency 2. Adding sub-classes for invalid-label and invalid-sid We would also like to solicit feedback

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02

Thank you Henk / Chairs. We have resubmitted the draft as draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-00. Thank you also to the Group for the constructive feedback. Looking forward to working with you all on this. Cheers John On 02/02/2024, 12:41, "OPSAWG on behalf of Henk Birkholz" mailto:opsawg-boun

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02

ent' > are interchangeable term, requirement seems more reasonable term to me. Ah - I see your point; yes - agree will change accordingly. Cheers John On 01/02/2024, 06:59, "Qin Wu" mailto:bill...@huawei.com>> wrote: -邮件原件- 发件人: Evans, John [mailto:jevanamz

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02

Hi Qin, > [Qin Wu] Maybe a new section can be added to clarify the relation with > RFC8343. We will explicitly call out the relationship to data models. > the table in section 3 just provides model structure but doesn't specify > parameters details. Yes - agreed - we will expand on that > [

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02

Hi Qin, Thank you for your feedback. > 1. what is the difference between packet loss and packet discard, it seems > this two terms are used interchangeably in the draft, in some places > packet discard reporting is used, while in some other places, packet loss > reporting, which I think lack co

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02

Hi Benoit, Thanks for your feedback. > I mean: what is the value of an information model without a respective > data model, or a mapping to data model(s)? Whilst it's true that having a data model is essential for implementing an information model effectively, our focus is on standardising a fr

[OPSAWG] FW: New Version Notification for draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02.txt

This version incorporates feedback we received from Med - thanks Med! Cheers John On 15/01/2024, 20:28, "internet-dra...@ietf.org " mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> wrote: A new version of Internet-Draft draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02.txt has been succe

[OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-01.txt

Hi opsawg Chairs, Following the presentation and feedback at IETF 118, we have checked in a 01 revision, incorporating feedback received. The feedback was generally supportive, and subsequent discussions in the WG reinforce the need for a defined discard classification model: https://mailarch

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel/ ; IPFIX forwardingStatus

Thanks Benoit. That makes sense and is one of our use cases. On 14/11/2023, 13:57, "Benoit Claise" mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi John, On 11/13/2023 3:27 PM, Evans, John wrote: > Thanks Beniot for your feedback. > > Are you suggesting to update th

[OPSAWG] draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-00

Hi Rob, In the session last Monday you raised the question of whether we needed a class for things that don’t map nicely to the other classes. We have a class which is effectively the catch-all today: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-00#name-discard-class-de

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-evans-discardclass-03.txt

ured is device/phys int/logical int, as component can be interface|device (ignore if you feel the comment to be pedantic). 2. All packet receipt, transmission and drops SHOULD be attributed to the physical or logical interface *of the device* where they occur. Regards, Ruediger -Ursp

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel/ ; IPFIX forwardingStatus

Thanks Beniot for your feedback. Are you suggesting to update the IPFIX forwarding status codes to reflect the discard classes in draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel? On 06/11/2023, 13:03, "Benoit Claise" mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the

[OPSAWG] FW: New Version Notification for draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-00.txt

Hi All, We just posted a draft which may be of interest to this group. All feedback welcomed. We would also like to present this at the upcoming meeting in Prague, if possible. Thanks John  A new version of Internet-Draft draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-00.txt has been successfull

[OPSAWG] FW: New Version Notification for draft-evans-discardclass-03.txt

Hi All - we just posted a draft which may be of interest to this group. This is currently an individual submission. Please feel free to contact us with any feedback. Thanks John A new version of I-D, draft-evans-discardclass-03.txt has been successfully submitted by John Evans and