Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)]

Hi, Linda,

Moving the discussion to i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>, other aliases to 
Bcc.

Please see inline.

—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com>

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound 
more photosynthesis."

On Jan 30, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Linda Dunbar 
<linda.dun...@huawei.com<mailto:linda.dun...@huawei.com>> wrote:

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?


The key difference is about what the protocol is used for and not in the how. 
You quoted “provides real-time telemetry of individual data packets and flows”, 
and that has no intersection with BFD, which provides liveness verification on 
an end-to-end basis.

Does it mean “Telemetry information that doesn’t have user payload” is out of 
the scope?


The goal of the creation of the new list and early threads is to discuss the 
charter, including its scope.

Thanks!

— Carlos.

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<mailto:berti...@bwijnen.net>>; 
rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; 
opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Alvaro Retana (aretana)]

Linda:

Hi!

As I said before, the intent is to charter a WG by IETF 98.  I suggest that you 
focus on the charter and not the list description.

In any case, I think a better discussion would result if asking the same 
questions on the ioam list.   That is the main objective of that list right 
now: to come to consensus on what may be in/out of scope for a WG to initially 
work on.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On 1/30/17, 4:39 PM, "Linda Dunbar" 
> wrote:

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?

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Linda Dunbar]

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

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Alvaro Retana (aretana)]

Bert:

As Frank indicated, the new 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)" 
> 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

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Bert Wijnen (IETF)]

Thanks Joel. I think this is much better than just adopting one
set of documents (or one approach) in the OPSAWG. As I mentioned
in the WG session Seoul, there are multiple efforts and approaches
in this space and various of them have indeed been presented in
a number of WG and/or RG sessions.

- 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.

Thanks,
Bert

On 19/01/2017 16:28, joel jaeggli wrote:

Hi,

I thought I would try and wrap this up since we're a bit over a month
since we put out the initial call after Seoul.

By my observation there have been a number of favorable expressions of
interest in pursuing this work both in OPS and elsewhere in the Routing
area. That said I think one of the conclusions the IESG has taken from
this is that In-band OAM is a cros- area activity and there is strong
interest or perhaps need to have input and review in the Routing area.
We have been exploring chartering this activity, which if it occurs
renders the question of adoption here moot.

The Ops and Routing chairs are trying to close the loop here, but I
expect that a proposed charter will be forthcoming shortly and we should
be able to progress this work.

The statements of support and enthusiasm for pursuing it has been useful
in gauging what to do with this proposal.

Thanks
joel

On 12/6/16 10:36 PM, Zhoutianran wrote:


Hi All,



In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive
response on related drafts.
So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt



To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But
you can give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D.



The question is:
Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?



It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the
drafts. If "yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to
improve the drafts? If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.



This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.


Thanks,
Tianran & Warren



___
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



___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Tianran Zhou]

Great to see this interesting work could get more contribution and wider 
discussion.
I hope good OAM experiences could be adopted in the common OAM header and 
applied by many protocols. And the mode could be in-band/out of band, 
active/passive, and many new telemetry method...

Best,
Tianran

发件人: joel jaeggli [joe...@bogus.com]
发送时间: 2017年1月19日 23:28
收件人: Tianran Zhou; opsawg@ietf.org
抄送: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; routing-...@ietf.org; Benoit Claise (bclaise)
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

Hi,

I thought I would try and wrap this up since we're a bit over a month
since we put out the initial call after Seoul.

By my observation there have been a number of favorable expressions of
interest in pursuing this work both in OPS and elsewhere in the Routing
area. That said I think one of the conclusions the IESG has taken from
this is that In-band OAM is a cros- area activity and there is strong
interest or perhaps need to have input and review in the Routing area.
We have been exploring chartering this activity, which if it occurs
renders the question of adoption here moot.

The Ops and Routing chairs are trying to close the loop here, but I
expect that a proposed charter will be forthcoming shortly and we should
be able to progress this work.

The statements of support and enthusiasm for pursuing it has been useful
in gauging what to do with this proposal.

Thanks
joel

On 12/6/16 10:36 PM, Zhoutianran wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive
> response on related drafts.
> So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt
>
>
>
> To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But
> you can give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D.
>
>
>
> The question is:
> Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?
>
>
>
> It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the
> drafts. If "yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to
> improve the drafts? If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.
>
>
>
> This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Tianran & Warren
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Linda Dunbar]

Joel, 

As I stated in my earlier email, I think the in-band OAM is important area to 
work on. 
Just want to make sure that the proposed charter has room for other people to 
contribute alternative mechanisms that are not exactly same as the drafts 
currently being published. 


Linda

-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of joel jaeggli
Sent: 2017年1月19日 9:28
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com>; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: routing-...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

Hi,

I thought I would try and wrap this up since we're a bit over a month since we 
put out the initial call after Seoul.

By my observation there have been a number of favorable expressions of interest 
in pursuing this work both in OPS and elsewhere in the Routing area. That said 
I think one of the conclusions the IESG has taken from this is that In-band OAM 
is a cros- area activity and there is strong interest or perhaps need to have 
input and review in the Routing area.
We have been exploring chartering this activity, which if it occurs renders the 
question of adoption here moot.

The Ops and Routing chairs are trying to close the loop here, but I expect that 
a proposed charter will be forthcoming shortly and we should be able to 
progress this work.

The statements of support and enthusiasm for pursuing it has been useful in 
gauging what to do with this proposal.

Thanks
joel

On 12/6/16 10:36 PM, Zhoutianran wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>  
>
> In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive 
> response on related drafts.
> So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.
>
>  
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02
> .txt 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt
>
>  
>
> To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But 
> you can give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D.
>
>  
>
> The question is:
> Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?
>
>  
>
> It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the 
> drafts. If "yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to 
> improve the drafts? If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.
>
>  
>
> This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.
>
>  
> Thanks,
> Tianran & Warren
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[joel jaeggli]

Hi,

I thought I would try and wrap this up since we're a bit over a month
since we put out the initial call after Seoul.

By my observation there have been a number of favorable expressions of
interest in pursuing this work both in OPS and elsewhere in the Routing
area. That said I think one of the conclusions the IESG has taken from
this is that In-band OAM is a cros- area activity and there is strong
interest or perhaps need to have input and review in the Routing area.
We have been exploring chartering this activity, which if it occurs
renders the question of adoption here moot.

The Ops and Routing chairs are trying to close the loop here, but I
expect that a proposed charter will be forthcoming shortly and we should
be able to progress this work.

The statements of support and enthusiasm for pursuing it has been useful
in gauging what to do with this proposal.

Thanks
joel

On 12/6/16 10:36 PM, Zhoutianran wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>  
>
> In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive
> response on related drafts.
> So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.
>
>  
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt
>
>  
>
> To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But
> you can give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D.
>
>  
>
> The question is:
> Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?
>
>  
>
> It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the
> drafts. If "yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to
> improve the drafts? If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.
>
>  
>
> This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.
>
>  
> Thanks,
> Tianran & Warren
>
>
>
> ___
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Nobo Akiya]

Hi Tianran & Warren,


I agree with the intents/benefits that proposal can offer.


I do worry about added bytes required to every In Situ packet (i.e., MTU).


(1) Is the proposal being too flexible? For example, data like opaque
application data can be powerful, but it can easily eat up lots of MTU.
OAM-trace-type can complicate implementations as included data (and their
offset) can vary for each bit combinations.


(2) Are all data fields defined as right size? Considering that node ID is
defined as 24 bits and interface ID is defined as 16 bits, I'm assuming
that they are IDs defined by a centralized controller/orchestrator. If so,
do they really need all to be that large?


One thought is to start off with couple of "tight" data types (not flexible
& least bits required) which addresses majority and/or high priority use
cases. With this approach, it will also simplify the "error handlings"
which the documents are lacking (and needs some attention if documents are
adopted by the WG).


> Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?


RE:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt


Yes, I'd like to see this work moving forward.


RE: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt


Yes, I'd like to see this work moving forward.


RE: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt


No, I'm not quite sure why this document is needed.


> It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the
drafts. If "yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to improve
the drafts?


Yes, I have read the documents. For the first two documents, I do plan to
further review.


Regards,

Nobo

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Zhoutianran  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
>
> In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive
> response on related drafts.
> So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt
>
>
>
> To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But you
> can give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D.
>
>
>
> The question is:
> Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?
>
>
>
> It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the
> drafts. If "yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to improve
> the drafts? If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.
>
>
>
> This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Tianran & Warren
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Bert Wijnen (IETF)]

Quick reply,
I am in the hospital at the moment awaiting heart surgery.
So I am not going to dig up the pointers now (maybe in a few weeks if still 
needed).
Hope you or someone else can find the relevant pointers.
In any event, I believe that Benoit and Adrian are aware of all the other 
ongoing work.

Sorry,
Bert

On 21/12/2016 07:02, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:

Hi, Bert,

Please find a couple of follow-ups inline.

—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com 

/“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound 
more photosynthesis."/


On Dec 14, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) > wrote:

i am not sure if it is wise to adopt these 3 drafts as WG documents at this
point in time. At our WG session in Seoul, (when the WG chairs did a humm for
this in the session), I spoke up and stated that during the week in Seoul
there had been several presentations on inband OAM and Telemetry.


Would it be possible for you to share pointers to  (at least a few of the 
several) specific presentations and Internet-Drafts that
overlap with or complement this work?

Note that the title of this documents was renamed to “In-Situ” (with thanks to 
Erik Nordmark for the suggestion) so as to not
confuse with the IETF definition of “inband”.


And I suggested that it might be wise to first analyze what is available and
already used or tested. Once we know that, we might be in a much better
position to determine which type of "inband OAM" or "Telemetry" mechanism makes
most sense.



Since specific pointers on what’s available is a pre requisite to understanding 
the landscape, see above.


My understanding of the humm in the WG was" "is this sort of work interesting
and do we as a WG want to work on thos". To that question, the humm seemed to
indicate that we indeed do fond the work relevant and interesting and that we
as the OPSAWG want to work on it. I took notes during our OPSAWG session in
Seoul, and I wrote down on this topic of inband OAM (and that has been posted
as draft minutes as well):

 Open question as where to land this work (OPS or TSV) ??

 Joel: the actual OAM methods vary on what the transport is.

 BW: there seem to be various telemetry ideas being presented at various 
places
 (WGs, RGs) should we get a summary of what is being discussed before we
  adopt a particular approach


“Telemetry” is such a broadly defined word that invariably, there will be 
“telemetry work” everywhere. When we focus and narrow
scope on the actual specifics of in-situ OAM, that does not seem to be the case 
anymore.

I do not believe the question is “does the WG want to take on telemetry”.


 Daniel King: yes we have seen some in SDNRG
 Benoit: how do you get the data off the devices
 That is still to be decided
 Chairs: humm for: do we i(OPSAWG) want to work on telemetry
 conclusion: yes we do
 Benoit: there is a pub/subscribe which is related

So I find it a step too quick/fast to now determine which documents to adopt
as WG document. Let us get (from someone versen in the field of inband OAM
and telemetry) get a summary of the various types of work that has already been
presented/proposed in the IETF (and possibly at other places) and let us then
see if we can choose a way forward.



I believe it is a fair request to compare and contrast and understand a broader 
picture. But that request expects more specifics
than a perhaps someone else should do it.

Given the very specific requirements detailed by operators and vendors in 
draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt, the fact
that we had to create a new descriptor (i.e., “In-Situ”) for this approach, and 
lack of specifics, it seems to me that the area of
in-situ OAM is non-overlapping with other “telemetry" potential work elsewhere.

Thanks,

— Carlos.


Bert

On 07/12/2016 07:36, Zhoutianran wrote:

Hi All,



In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive response 
on related drafts.
So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt



To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But you can 
give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per
I-D.



The question is:
Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?



It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the drafts. If 
"yes", would you like to review the drafts and help
to improve the drafts? If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.



This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.


Thanks,
Tianran & Warren



___
OPSAWG mailing list

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Tal Mizrahi]

Hi,

As a co-author I support WG adoption of these documents.

I believe the OPSA WG is the most suitable place for these drafts, since they 
present an OAM solution that may be applicable to both the Routing area (e.g., 
NVO3, SFC), and the Internet area (6man). The in-situ work has a cross-area 
nature on one hand, but is pretty specific on the other hand --- it is not 
intended to be a generic OAM solution for overlay protocols, and therefore is 
not intended to overlap with the work of the RTG area Overlay OAM DT.

Therefore, I believe the OPSA WG is the best place to foster the in-situ OAM 
work.

Thanks,
Tal.





From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhoutianran
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 8:37 AM
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [EXT] [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts


Hi All,



In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive response 
on related drafts.
So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt



To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But you can 
give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D.



The question is:
Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?



It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the drafts. If 
"yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to improve the drafts? If 
"no", it is important that you provide reasons.



This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.


Thanks,
Tianran & Warren
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)]

Thanks again, Tianran and Adrian.

Please find a couple additional comments inline.

—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com>

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound 
more photosynthesis."

On Dec 16, 2016, at 1:28 AM, Zhoutianran 
<zhoutian...@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your comments. The poll is to collect various opinions from the WG.
I have some preliminary reply in line.

Best,
Tianran
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 6:09 AM
To: Zhoutianran; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

Hi Tianran,

I'm fairly much in agreement that this is a topic that should be worked on in 
the IETF.

>> Agreed.


+1.

I am somewhat nervous about the overlap between this and OAM work undertaken in 
a number of working groups chiefly in the Routing Area, and I hope there can be 
some careful coordination.

>> I also asked the authors about this question. Especially there is an overlay 
>> OAM design team in routing area. Their drafts and outputs show they also 
>> want to standardize a common OAM header for various transport.


It is indeed a fair question and I appreciate seeing it explicitly. The common 
OAM header for OAM probes on disparate transports seems orthogonal to the 
in-situ OAM (iOAM) requirement and approach. The in-situ OAM work also has code 
at https://fd.io/.

My feeling is that we should start with the requirements draft at once. I am 
pretty sure that once inside the WG we can quickly get important input from 
operators and bash it into shape.

I think that the data format document may be close to being ready for adoption, 
but I think that there are some largish wrinkles that could do with being 
ironed out first. Chief among these are:
- A thorough investigation of the numeric impact on the amount of data that can 
be sent. In other words, the change to the effective MTU
- The Abstract specifically says how encapsulation will be managed for IPv6. 
Not only does the document later say that this is out of scope, but the 
mechanism proposed in the Abstract is one that worries me.
- I don't like that the OAM only works if every node on the path supports it. I 
would like for us to achieve some form of comfortable b/w compatibility.
- As an "experiment" I would like to understand how the experiment would be 
conducted and what would constitute success

Why do I think these points should be addressed before adoption? I am worried 
that without looking at them first there will be an assumption that the 
document's is already set and 'radical' changes cannot be made. I think that my 
points can be handled by:
- Adding a section on "MTU Concerns" that provides a pointer to the relevant 
part of the requirements draft, and offers up some basic maths on the expected 
size of OAM information in a packet.
- Removing the offending text from the Abstract
- Adding a section on b/w compatibility (maybe just as a placeholder) and 
cleaning up the text that requires every node on the path to support in-situ 
OAM.
- Adding a section scoping the experiment that the authors think they want the 
WG to perform.

>> Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Indeed, thanks again Adrian.


As for the proof of transit work, I think it is a bit of a mess at the moment. 
It seems to be growing new approaches and options, each with drawbacks and 
issues. And I'm not clear on the objectives.  This might be handled as with the 
previous document by describing and scoping the experiment, but as currently 
written, it would appear that the intention is to research a number of 
potential approaches to proof of transit rather than to experiment with a 
particular protocol solution, and that might make the document better suited to 
the NMRG. So I would like to apply a bit more caution to that document.
>> In my opinion, the objective of the POT draft is to demonstrate a solution 
>> for an applicable use case with in-situ OAM.

That is correct.


In any event, during the process of adoption, do you think you could cut down 
the front page authors to a manageable number so that we know who is editing 
the work going forward?

>> I think 5 authors is preferred. But at least the authors can add “Ed.” tag 
>> after the editors.


This is solvable and we take guidance.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

Thanks,
Adrian

From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhoutianran
Sent: 07 December 2016 06:37
To: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

Hi All,

In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive resp

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)]

Hi Adrian,

Interesting thoughts, please see inline.

—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound 
more photosynthesis."

On Dec 15, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Adrian Farrel 
> wrote:

Hi Tianran,

I'm fairly much in agreement that this is a topic that should be worked on in 
the IETF.

I am somewhat nervous about the overlap between this and OAM work undertaken in 
a number of working groups chiefly in the Routing Area, and I hope there can be 
some careful coordination.


I believe the potentially perceived overlap is not real, and I’m not nervous 
about it.

I understand the word “OAM” is overlapping with work happening elsewhere inside 
and outside the IETF. However, when we look right underneath the thin surface, 
the overlap quickly tends to zero.

Looking at the OAM work in the RTG Area, and in particular the RTG-AD chartered 
Design Team, it seems to extend as far as defining an OAM protocol indication 
header pre-pended to specific OAM probe packets, modeled after the MPLS G-ACh.

On the other hand, the Operators and HW/SW Vendors from 
draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements narrowscope the problem/opportunity 
area quite early:

Abstract

   This document discusses the motivation and requirements for including
   specific operational and telemetry information into data packets
   while the data packet traverses a path between two points in the
   network.  This method is referred to as "in-situ" Operations,
   Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)

My read of this is that:
1. There’s no overlap.
2. The problem and solution spaces fall squarely within the scope at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/charter/

My feeling is that we should start with the requirements draft at once. I am 
pretty sure that once inside the WG we can quickly get important input from 
operators and bash it into shape.


I agree, and would add that all these documents have received substantial input 
from operators, which is another reason for getting even more at opsawg.

I think that the data format document may be close to being ready for adoption, 
but I think that there are some largish wrinkles that could do with being 
ironed out first. Chief among these are:

I believe that these are four great pieces of input, which should be ironed out 
with WG input as a WG document. And that:

- A thorough investigation of the numeric impact on the amount of data that can 
be sent. In other words, the change to the effective MTU

as an adoption poll, this is an area that would use WG input once adopted.

- The Abstract specifically says how encapsulation will be managed for IPv6. 
Not only does the document later say that this is out of scope, but the 
mechanism proposed in the Abstract is one that worries me.

This is a quick fix. But yes, needs to be fixed :-)

- I don't like that the OAM only works if every node on the path supports it. I 
would like for us to achieve some form of comfortable b/w compatibility.

I would state this quite differently. iOAM does not stop working in a 
brownfield, or when only some nodes support it.

It is, as such, a backwards compatible approach, in which legacy nodes are 
transparent.

But for new features we need to have new code, and here a good thing is that 
there is running code.

- As an "experiment" I would like to understand how the experiment would be 
conducted and what would constitute success


The experiment is ongoing in FD.io and other places, and 
hopefully the IETF does not fall behind. But this does beg another question for 
the WG, which is regarding the best intended status, and we would like WG input 
for it.

Why do I think these points should be addressed before adoption? I am worried 
that without looking at them first there will be an assumption that the 
document's is already set and 'radical' changes cannot be made.

The question on adoption as you know is whether the document provides a solid 
basis as a starting point, not if it is fixed.

I think that my points can be handled by:
- Adding a section on "MTU Concerns" that provides a pointer to the relevant 
part of the requirements draft, and offers up some basic maths on the expected 
size of OAM information in a packet.
- Removing the offending text from the Abstract
- Adding a section on b/w compatibility (maybe just as a placeholder) and 
cleaning up the text that requires every node on the path to support in-situ 
OAM.
- Adding a section scoping the experiment that the authors think they want the 
WG to perform.

These seem to be all good areas to work on and add. And in fact would love to 
have your text on the MTU area.


As for the proof of transit work, I think it is a bit of a mess at the moment. 
It seems to be growing new approaches and options, each with drawbacks and 
issues. And I'm not clear on the objectives.  This might be handled as with 

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)]

Hi, Bert,

Please find a couple of follow-ups inline.

—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound 
more photosynthesis."

On Dec 14, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) 
> wrote:

i am not sure if it is wise to adopt these 3 drafts as WG documents at this
point in time. At our WG session in Seoul, (when the WG chairs did a humm for
this in the session), I spoke up and stated that during the week in Seoul
there had been several presentations on inband OAM and Telemetry.

Would it be possible for you to share pointers to  (at least a few of the 
several) specific presentations and Internet-Drafts that overlap with or 
complement this work?

Note that the title of this documents was renamed to “In-Situ” (with thanks to 
Erik Nordmark for the suggestion) so as to not confuse with the IETF definition 
of “inband”.

And I suggested that it might be wise to first analyze what is available and
already used or tested. Once we know that, we might be in a much better
position to determine which type of "inband OAM" or "Telemetry" mechanism makes
most sense.


Since specific pointers on what’s available is a pre requisite to understanding 
the landscape, see above.

My understanding of the humm in the WG was" "is this sort of work interesting
and do we as a WG want to work on thos". To that question, the humm seemed to
indicate that we indeed do fond the work relevant and interesting and that we
as the OPSAWG want to work on it. I took notes during our OPSAWG session in
Seoul, and I wrote down on this topic of inband OAM (and that has been posted
as draft minutes as well):

 Open question as where to land this work (OPS or TSV) ??

 Joel: the actual OAM methods vary on what the transport is.

 BW: there seem to be various telemetry ideas being presented at various 
places
 (WGs, RGs) should we get a summary of what is being discussed before we
  adopt a particular approach

“Telemetry” is such a broadly defined word that invariably, there will be 
“telemetry work” everywhere. When we focus and narrow scope on the actual 
specifics of in-situ OAM, that does not seem to be the case anymore.

I do not believe the question is “does the WG want to take on telemetry”.

 Daniel King: yes we have seen some in SDNRG
 Benoit: how do you get the data off the devices
 That is still to be decided
 Chairs: humm for: do we i(OPSAWG) want to work on telemetry
 conclusion: yes we do
 Benoit: there is a pub/subscribe which is related

So I find it a step too quick/fast to now determine which documents to adopt
as WG document. Let us get (from someone versen in the field of inband OAM
and telemetry) get a summary of the various types of work that has already been
presented/proposed in the IETF (and possibly at other places) and let us then
see if we can choose a way forward.


I believe it is a fair request to compare and contrast and understand a broader 
picture. But that request expects more specifics than a perhaps someone else 
should do it.

Given the very specific requirements detailed by operators and vendors in 
draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt, the fact that we had to create 
a new descriptor (i.e., “In-Situ”) for this approach, and lack of specifics, it 
seems to me that the area of in-situ OAM is non-overlapping with other 
“telemetry" potential work elsewhere.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

Bert

On 07/12/2016 07:36, Zhoutianran wrote:
Hi All,



In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive response 
on related drafts.
So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt



To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But you can 
give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per
I-D.



The question is:
Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?



It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the drafts. If 
"yes", would you like to review the drafts and help
to improve the drafts? If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.



This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.


Thanks,
Tianran & Warren



___
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

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)]

Hi, Tianran & Warren,

Yes, the WG should adopt these documents, and yes I have read them (and wrote 
some of them) [NB: I am a co-author]

These documents provide a well organized description of an 
operator-acknowledged problem space / opportunity space, and then follows to 
defining both data structures as well as mechanisms for proof of transit of a 
path or a service chain.

The previous two IETF meetings showed both interest and support for this work, 
as they are a collaborative product (operators + vendors).

To maximize the chances of interoperability, which clearly matters for 
real-time in-situ telemetry as an end-to-end solution, these Internet-Drafts 
would be best served by being hosted in the WG with deep knowledge, expertise, 
and experience in operational areas in a tech agnostic way, and continue as a 
product of an even tighter collaboration.

Looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/charter/, these documents 
seem to squarely fall within scope. And in particular, this bar seems passed:

   The OPSAWG will undertake only work items that are proved to have at
   least a reasonable level of interest from the operators and users
   community and have a committed number of editors and reviewers. It is

Thanks,

—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound 
more photosynthesis."

On Dec 7, 2016, at 1:36 AM, Zhoutianran 
> wrote:

Hi All,



In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive response 
on related drafts.
So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt



To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But you can 
give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D.



The question is:
Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?



It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the drafts. If 
"yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to improve the drafts? If 
"no", it is important that you provide reasons.



This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.

Thanks,
Tianran & Warren
___
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

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Stewart Bryant]

On 15/12/2016 22:09, Adrian Farrel wrote:
As for the proof of transit work, I think it is a bit of a mess at the 
moment. It seems to be growing new approaches and options, each with 
drawbacks and issues. And I'm not clear on the objectives. This might 
be handled as with the previous document by describing and scoping the 
experiment, but as currently written, it would appear that the 
intention is to research a number of potential approaches to proof of 
transit rather than to experiment with a particular protocol solution, 
and that might make the document better suited to the NMRG. So I would 
like to apply a bit more caution to that document.


I think that there are two proof of transit solutions needed. One for 
network operators for simple operational verification and one for 
commercial or regulatory situations. In the first case one can assume a 
benign environment and use a lightweight approach. In the other one must 
assume a hostile environment and apply a more stringent proof. Maybe one 
can be a variant of the other, but this should not be at the cost of 
performance and implementation expense.


- Stewart
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Zhoutianran]

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your comments. The poll is to collect various opinions from the WG.
I have some preliminary reply in line.

Best,
Tianran
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 6:09 AM
To: Zhoutianran; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

Hi Tianran,

I'm fairly much in agreement that this is a topic that should be worked on in 
the IETF.

>> Agreed.

I am somewhat nervous about the overlap between this and OAM work undertaken in 
a number of working groups chiefly in the Routing Area, and I hope there can be 
some careful coordination.

>> I also asked the authors about this question. Especially there is an overlay 
>> OAM design team in routing area. Their drafts and outputs show they also 
>> want to standardize a common OAM header for various transport.

My feeling is that we should start with the requirements draft at once. I am 
pretty sure that once inside the WG we can quickly get important input from 
operators and bash it into shape.

I think that the data format document may be close to being ready for adoption, 
but I think that there are some largish wrinkles that could do with being 
ironed out first. Chief among these are:
- A thorough investigation of the numeric impact on the amount of data that can 
be sent. In other words, the change to the effective MTU
- The Abstract specifically says how encapsulation will be managed for IPv6. 
Not only does the document later say that this is out of scope, but the 
mechanism proposed in the Abstract is one that worries me.
- I don't like that the OAM only works if every node on the path supports it. I 
would like for us to achieve some form of comfortable b/w compatibility.
- As an "experiment" I would like to understand how the experiment would be 
conducted and what would constitute success

Why do I think these points should be addressed before adoption? I am worried 
that without looking at them first there will be an assumption that the 
document's is already set and 'radical' changes cannot be made. I think that my 
points can be handled by:
- Adding a section on "MTU Concerns" that provides a pointer to the relevant 
part of the requirements draft, and offers up some basic maths on the expected 
size of OAM information in a packet.
- Removing the offending text from the Abstract
- Adding a section on b/w compatibility (maybe just as a placeholder) and 
cleaning up the text that requires every node on the path to support in-situ 
OAM.
- Adding a section scoping the experiment that the authors think they want the 
WG to perform.

>> Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

As for the proof of transit work, I think it is a bit of a mess at the moment. 
It seems to be growing new approaches and options, each with drawbacks and 
issues. And I'm not clear on the objectives.  This might be handled as with the 
previous document by describing and scoping the experiment, but as currently 
written, it would appear that the intention is to research a number of 
potential approaches to proof of transit rather than to experiment with a 
particular protocol solution, and that might make the document better suited to 
the NMRG. So I would like to apply a bit more caution to that document.
>> In my opinion, the objective of the POT draft is to demonstrate a solution 
>> for an applicable use case with in-situ OAM.

In any event, during the process of adoption, do you think you could cut down 
the front page authors to a manageable number so that we know who is editing 
the work going forward?

>> I think 5 authors is preferred. But at least the authors can add "Ed." tag 
>> after the editors.

Thanks,
Adrian

From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhoutianran
Sent: 07 December 2016 06:37
To: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts


Hi All,



In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive response 
on related drafts.
So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt



To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But you can 
give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D.



The question is:
Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?



It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the drafts. If 
"yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to improve the drafts? If 
"no", it is important that you provide reasons.



This poll will last for two weeks, endin