Hi Thomas, thank you for the feedback and proposed update. Please find my notes below tagged by GIM2>>.
Regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 6:56 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Greg, > > > > Thanks a lot for addressing my comments. > > > > GIM> It could be easier to take out "flow" altogether. WDYT? > > > > TG> Let me propose something else: > > > > Change from > > > > "When analyzing the availability metrics of a service flow between two > nodes" > > > > To > > > > "When analyzing the availability metrics of a connectivity service between > two measurement points" > GIM2>> Prior to IETF-117 the authors extensively discussed the definition of a connectivity service. Because we couldn't find it being formulated in published documents we agreed to avoid referencing it in the PAM document. I hope that you will agree to the following update: OLD TEXT: When analyzing the availability metrics of a service flow between two nodes, a time interval as the unit of PAM needs to be selected. NEW TEXT: When analyzing the availability metrics of a service between two measurement points, a time interval as the unit of PAM needs to be selected. > > > GIM>> I agree. Check the attached diff. > > > > TG> Perfect thanks! > GIM2>> Great! > > > Best wishes > > Thomas > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2023 10:33 PM > *To:* Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-ippm-pam-04, > draft-clemm-opsawg-pam-ipfix-00 > > > > Hi Thomas, > > thank you for supporting this work and for your helpful comments. Please > find my notes inlined below tagged by GIM>>. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 2:24 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Alex and Greg, > > > > I reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-pam-04 and draft-clemm-opsawg-pam-ipfix-00 and > have some comments and questions. > > > > Section 3.1 of draft-ietf-ippm-pam-04 ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-pam-04#section-3.1) > mentions the term "service flow". > > > > I haven't been able to find in any IETF document describing/defining the > term. I suggest to describe it in the terminology section 2.1 and specify > it as an IPFIX and YANG element. > > GIM>> I checked and found that "service flow" is used only once in the > document: > > > > When analyzing the availability metrics of a service flow between two > > nodes, a time interval as the unit of PAM needs to be selected. > > > > It could be easier to take out "flow" altogether. WDYT? > > > > Section 3.3 of draft-ietf-ippm-pam-04 specifies an "Unavailability > threshold". I suggest to specify in Section 3.1 of > draft-clemm-opsawg-pam-ipfix-00 ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-clemm-opsawg-pam-ipfix-00#section-3.1) > this as IPFIX element as well. > > > > The "service flow" describes that the SLO metrics are measured between two > nodes. However in draft-clemm-opsawg-pam-ipfix the SLO metrics are measured > and export on one node. I would appreciate if you could describe how this > information is being measured. Presumably by leveraging of probing. > > GIM>> The PAM document will not specify how to measure but where and what > to be measured. We will work on clarifying that all PAM metrics are > measured between two Measurement Points in the PAM IPFIX draft. > > > > In general I feel that draft-ietf-ippm-pam-04 would benefit of having a > reference to the Performance Metrics Registry defined in RFC 8911/8912. > > GIM>> I agree. Check the attached diff. > > > > I would be interested to understand wherever the authors intend to create > a draft document describing a service YANG module. > > GIM>> That's a great suggestion, thank you. Let us discuss it. > > > > Best wishes > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
