Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Dear OPSAWG, I have reviewed this draft and support it. On-path delay is becoming more relevant, and having it exposed through a well-standardized and diffused protocol as IPFIX is the right approach. Best regards, Marco From: Tianran Zhou Date: Thursday, 22 December 2022 at 03:25 To: opsaw

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/?q=draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01 Danke! Angekommen 😀 Sorry für den Stress. Lg Thomas On 13 Jan 2023, at 07:16, Buchs Yannick, INI-NET-VNC-HCS wrote:  Dear OPSAWG, I strongly support the adoption of draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Dear OPSAWG, I strongly support the adoption of draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01. It addresses an important topic which is export of on-path delay metrics through IPFIX, which is a mature and widely used standard. Best Regards Yannick From: Tianran Zhou mailto:zhoutian...@huawe

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Hi, I support adoption of draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01 and intend to validate and implement the data collection in pmacct. Paolo On 21/12/22 23:25, Tianran Zhou wrote: Hi WG, This mail starts a WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01. https:

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Hi OPSAWG, I reviewed this draft on the IPPM-List a few months back, and I support its adoption by the opsawg. Al On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 6:26 PM Tianran Zhou mailto:40huawei@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi WG, This mail starts a WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Dear OPSAWG, Of course, as a co-author of the draft, I support the WG adoption. I do think we need this new information elements in IPFIX. I also would like to inform that I am working on an implementation in the open-source project Fd.io VPP of this draft using Trace-type IOAM

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Hi all, I support this WG Adoption Call. I'm convinced it helps us to do an honorable step in the future of modern network monitoring and analytics. Best Regards, Severin Dellsperger From: OPSAWG on behalf of Tianran Zhou Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 3:25

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

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 f

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Hi Thomas and Benoit, The changes are perfectly addressing my comments, thanks. Best, Jean From: Benoit Claise Sent: Thursday 5 January 2023 13:19 To: thomas.g...@swisscom.com; Jean Quilbeuf ; zhoutianran=40huawei@dmarc.ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org Cc: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme...

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Thomas From: Tianran Zhou Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 2:36 AM To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS ; gregimir...@gmail.com Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01 Dear Tianran, Thanks a lot for your feedback. I understood that with draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking we already have a document which intends to extend alternat path marking with

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

gregimir...@gmail.com>; Tianran Zhou mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme...@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Subj

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Dear all, On 1/5/2023 9:48 AM, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote: Dear Jean, Thanks a lot for the comprehensive review and comments. They all make perfectly sense. I merged them into the -02 version https://raw.githubusercontent.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/main/dra

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Dear Jean, Thanks a lot for the comprehensive review and comments. They all make perfectly sense. I merged them into the -02 version https://raw.githubusercontent.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/main/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-02.txt And here the diff:

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Dear All, I support the adoption of this draft. I have a few very minor comments below. Best, Jean Section 1, paragraph 4: OLD "Since these IPFIX IEs are performance metrics [RFC8911], they must be registered as registered performance metrics [RFC8911] in the "IANA ..." NEW "Since t

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

ments. Best wishes Thomas From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 4:41 PM To: Tianran Zhou ; opsawg@ietf.org Cc: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Hello all, Why not use the grpc to export all the iOAM metrics measured by the device? Only one way delay is expoeted by IPFIX in this doc, how about others? I prefer using one protocol to export all the iOAM metrics if possible because this is convinent for both the device and the collector.

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Hi WG chairs and all, I have read this draft and support its adption by opsawg WG. On-path delay is an important concern to operators. The exposion of the On-Path Telemetry measured delay on the IOAM nodes in IPFIX is very useful for the network opeartion and guaratee the experience of custom

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

u mailto:zhoutianran=40huawei@dmarc.ietf.org>> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01 Dear All, I read the latest version of the draft. I appreciate the work authors put into making the document clear and easy to read. Proposed IEs are essential for further developing an out-of-band collection of

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Dear All, I read the latest version of the draft. I appreciate the work authors put into making the document clear and easy to read. Proposed IEs are essential for further developing an out-of-band collection of telemetry information. I strongly support the adoption of this work by the OPSAWG. I ha