Dear opsawg working group,
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh defines new IPFIX entities where the SRH and
associated control-plane related dimensions are exposed to enable SRv6
data-plane visibility.
The draft has been introduced and presented at IETF 113 to OPSAWG and SPRING
where we
Hi Benoit,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:16 PM Benoit Claise
wrote:
> Hi Dhruv,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the draft.
> See inline.
>
> On 6/26/2022 4:04 PM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> I think this work is very useful. I have some comments (also see my review
> of the architecture I-D).
>
>
Hi Tianran,
I would like to present draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest.
15 min would enough.
Thanks, Benoit
From:Tianran Zhou
To:opsawg
Date:2022-06-27 04:39:42
Subject:Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentation
When you request a time slot, please include the following information:
The
Thanks Benoit for the clarifications.
I would urge the authors to add some clarification text around these as
they see fit. Thanks again for taking my comments into consideration.
Regards,
Dhruv
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:51 PM Benoit Claise
wrote:
> Hi Dhruv,
>
> Thanks for your review.
> See
Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for reviewing the draft.
See inline.
On 6/26/2022 4:04 PM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
Hi WG,
I think this work is very useful. I have some comments (also see my
review of the architecture I-D).
Minor
- In the text of the I-D, we should explain that the symptoms are
targeted at
Hi Med,
Thanks again.
See inline for some points
On 6/27/2022 10:44 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Jean,
Thank you for the update and the replies.
This version looks better. Please see below some pending comments on -06:
* I don’t think that the “id” MUST be globally unique”,
Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for your review.
See inline
On 6/26/2022 4:03 PM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
Hi WG,
I think this work is very useful. I have some comments -
Minor
- We need a reference or some discussion of what we mean by "intent"
before we jump into SAIN in the Introduction.
We could reuse the
Jean,
I think “model (Section 2 of [RFC8309]) or the network model (Section 2.1 of
[RFC8309])” should be “model (Section 2 of [RFC8309]) or the network model
(Section 2.1 of [RFC8969])
Cheers,
Med
De : OPSAWG De la part de Jean Quilbeuf
Envoyé : mardi 28 juin 2022 13:18
À : Wubo (lana) ;
Hi Bo,
Thanks a lot for your comments. I addressed them in the current version:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-06.
For point 1: clarified that service is linked to what the service orchestrator
is orchestrating. I hope that this solves the
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : Service Assurance for Intent-based Networking
Architecture
Authors : Benoit
10 matches
Mail list logo
