Hi David, thank you for your kind consideration. Iread the latest version of the draft and found that my concern about the naming new IEs ( see comments from 10, 2024 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/kbNvNZgNfDThtg3ZZj9q0Jawx80/>) is not addressed, along with concerns with using undefined entities like "OAM node" and "Collector". Below, please find my comments to the draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-20 </>:
- Characterization if Passport and Postcard modes in the Introduction is not consistent with RFC 9232 where the passport mode is referred to IOAM as defined in RFC 9127, while postcard mode - to RFC 9326. According to RFC 9232, the passport mode is when telemetry information is collected along the path and transported in the trigger packet, while postcard mode - such information is collected and transported from each traversed node by some mechanism, e.g., over the management plane. - Combining "Hybrid Type I" with "Passive" in reference to performance metrics is confusing and inaccurate. RFC 7799 defines hybrid measurement methods as a combination of the elements of passive and active measurement methods. Furthermore, RFC 7799 identifies two types of hybrid measurement methods - Type I (IOAM and Alternate Marking are examples of it) and Type II. There's no mention of Hybrid Type I Passive in RFC 7799. - Another concern with the naming new IPFIX IEs is reference to IP in "HybridType1_Passive_IP". Is it to signify that the IEs are applicable only to delay measurement of the IP flows? But can they be used to export delay metrics of, for example, an MPLS flow? - Some key elements used in the document, e.g., "OAM node" and "Collector", are underdefined. - I consider the content of Section 3.2.2 Packet Stream Generation essential and that the reader must understand any document referenced in the section. Hence, I believe that references to [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking] and [I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark] must be normative, if the Alternate Marking method is in the scope of the document. I hope that my comments are helpful. Regards, Greg On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM David Dong via RT < drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > That will be fine, thank you! > > Best regards, > > David Dong > IANA Services Sr. Specialist > > On Tue Jul 29 20:44:30 2025, gregimir...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi David, > > my apologies for the belated response and missing the deadline. I can > > review the current version by August 1st. Please let me know if that is > > acceptable to you. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 12:39 PM David Dong via RT < > > drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > Just a ping on this one if you're available to take another look at > this > > > document. > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > David Dong > > > IANA Services Sr. Specialist > > > > > > On Wed Jul 16 20:58:45 2025, michael.sch...@hs-esslingen.de wrote: > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > As Greg has already reviewed earlier versions of this document, I > > > > believe that he is in a better position to review this document. > > > > > > > > If Greg is not available, I'd have a look myself. > > > > > > > > I have not followed this document in detail so far. As far as I can > > > > see, there has been a OPSAWG list discussion regarding IANA in the > > > > past. For what it is worth, I back some of the questions raised by > > > > Greg in his past e-mail > > > > ( > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/kbNvNZgNfDThtg3ZZj9q0Jawx80/ > > > ). > > > > And at least in the list archive it is not clear how all of them have > > > > been resolved, as there is only one follow-up posting. For instance, > > > > RFC 7799 Section 3.8 doesn't really define a combination of "Hybrid > I" > > > > and "Passive", as far as I read the text of RFC 7799. But Greg has > > > > probably more context regarding that discussion. > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: David Dong via RT <drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 12:01 AM > > > > > Cc: gregimir...@gmail.com; Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs- > > > > > esslingen.de>; opsawg@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: [IANA #1422930] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix- > > > > > on-path- > > > > > telemetry (performance-metrics) > > > > > > > > > > Dear Greg Mirsky, Michael Scharf (cc: opsawg wg), > > > > > > > > > > As the designated experts for the Performance Metrics Registry, can > > > > > you > > > > > review the proposed registrations in > draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path- > > > > > telemetry-19 for us? Please see > > > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path- > > > > > telemetry/ > > > > > > > > > > The due date is July 28th. > > > > > > > > > > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, > > > > > we'll make > > > > > the registration at: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/performance-metrics/ > > > > > > > > > > Unless you ask us to wait for the other reviewer, we’ll act on the > > > > > first response > > > > > we receive. > > > > > > > > > > With thanks, > > > > > > > > > > David Dong > > > > > IANA Services Sr. Specialist > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
