On 3/21/18 04:01, Haoyu song wrote: > Dear all, > > > > The WG presentation triggered a lot warm discussions on this topic. > > While we agree that at present it’s too aggressive to try to unify the > telemetry protocols, we feel it is needed to formalize the terminologies > and clarify the technique classifications from multiple dimensions so to > ensure we have a common language in addressing such issues for the > upcoming network architectures such intent driven network.
Thanks for continuing to work on this document, Haoyu. The idea of a "common taxonomy" is a good one. However, the current draft mentions a desire to "[integrate] multiple telemetry approaches" into a framework. I think the comments stated in London were of the vein that given the amount of work involved (and the use cases and solutions that have been put forward thus far), this is a monumental undertaking. As a contributor, perhaps there is something unique to the IBN/IDN architecture(s) that need a well-defined, common framework to how telemetry is approached. That would at least refine scope a bit more. > > > > The latest version can be found at: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-song-ntf-01 > > The document is still at its early stage. Please continue to provide > your comments and suggestions to scope it and contribute to it. The -01 modifications do help with readability, and I do encourage others to read and comment. Joe > > Thank you very much! > > > > Best regards, > > Haoyu > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
