From: ippm <[email protected]> on behalf of Giuseppe Fioccola <[email protected]> Sent: 23 October 2023 18:27
Hi again, I forgot to mention that, in relation to this document, we also published two new drafts: * IPFIX Alternate-Marking Information (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark/) * YANG Data Model for the Alternate Marking Method (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gfz-ippm-alt-mark-yang/) These documents complement the AltMark deployment document for what concerns the configuration (YANG) and data export (IPFIX) aspects. Your reviews are welcomed. <tp> YANG is mostly lower case whereas I note that the file name is upper case. Also, I find prefix long - here it is longer than the file name. Perhaps 'amm:' or altmk:'. Some models have path statements which are nested ten deep and then the length of the prefix can significantly affect legibility. I think that 3-4-5 characters is good. YANG imports must be Normative References in the I-D; you need to add 8353 8532. Common practice is to have a section 4.1 saying the YANG module imports from [RFC8532], [RFC8353] and makes reference to ... I suggest mentioning RFC9341 RFC9342 in the Abstract (but not as an XML link). Note that users can augment this module Well yes, how can you stop them? I suggest adding something about what augmentations are likely and where they are likely to be. Sometimes authors add empty containers as anchors for potential augmentations. the reference in the revision clause is not quite the same as the document title support for a function is often indicated by a presence container as opposed to feature; this is widespread in routing modules. what are the units of period? not sure if opsawg are interested in this Tom Petch Regards, Giuseppe (on behalf of the coauthors) From: Giuseppe Fioccola Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 7:19 PM To: 'Nilo Massimo' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Section 6 - draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01 Dear All, Please note that we just submitted a new version of draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment to address the comments received. Inputs and suggestions are always welcome. Regards, Giuseppe (on behalf of the coauthors) From: Nilo Massimo <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 5:22 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Section 6 - draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01 Hi Thomas, thank you for your feedback. I have a couple of comments. In section 6.1 for IPFIX, in order to calculate loss you said to use for packets the entity octetDeltaCount(IE1). But might it be better to use the entity packetDeltaCount(IE2)? Moreover I suggest for the delay to add the use of existing entities flowEndSeconds, flowEndMilliseconds, flowEndMicroseconds, flowEndNanoseconds. Best Regards, Massimo Gruppo TIM - Uso Interno - Tutti i diritti riservati. From: ippm <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: lunedì 25 settembre 2023 13:23 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [EXT] [ippm] Section 6 - draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01 Dear draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment authors, Dear IPPM working group, First of all I think draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment is a valuable document describing the deployment of Alternat Marking. I have reviewed https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment/ the Network Telemetry aspect described in Section 6 and wrote a proposal for -01 as following: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment/main/draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01.txt https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment/main/draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01.xml The new section describes how the export could be performed with existing IPFIX entities where decomposition is performed at the data collection and what needs to be consider for new IPFIX entities. I also described the publication with YANG push and what needs to be considered in terms of subscription, data publication and modeling. Here the current diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?url_1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-00.txt&url_2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment/main/draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01.txt I hope this makes sense and is helpful for the community. Feedback and comments welcome. Best wishes Thomas ________________________________ Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
