Hi, Joe: 发件人: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> 发送时间: 2026年4月8日 23:34 收件人: Qin Wu <[email protected]>; [email protected] 抄送: Victor Lopez (Nokia) <[email protected]>; LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <[email protected]> 主题: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-05.txt
Thanks for the changes, Qin. >>The numexecutions leaf is odd to me. First, I think something like >>"execution-count" might read better. But, more importantly, how does this >>factor into recurrence/frequency? If I choose 3 executions, >>are they executed simultaneously? One after the other? On the frequency >>intervals? [Qin Wu] In the current version, we import “recurrence-basics” grouping from RFC9922, in such grouping, only frequency and interval parameters are specified, however it doesn’t restrict the number of times the same test sequence is executed, therefore we believe numexecutions leaf can be used to limit the number of times the same test sequence is executed. See the PR I have submitted: https://github.com/vlopezalvarez/draft-contreras-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests/pull/80/changes Alternatively, we can import “recurrence-utc” grouping, which has “count” parameter used to restrict the number of times the same test sequence is executed. [JMC] I appreciate the renaming, but my other questions remain. Should there be some text to explain how each execution specified in that leaf are run? I suppose I choose 3 for execution-count and I schedule a frequency of 10 minutes, but my period-start and period-end only include time for two tests to run. This would then be maximum number of tests iterations to run in the scheduled time? [QW]: I would like to quote one statement in the section 3.3.5 of RFC9922 as follows: “The repetition can be scoped by a specified end time or by a count of occurrences, indicated by the "recurrence-end" choice. ” The repetition parameters can be the count of occurrence or a specified end time. In our draft, we import “recurrence-basics” grouping: grouping recurrence-basic: +-- recurrence-description? string +-- frequency? identityref +-- interval? uint32 In this case, frequency such as daily, weekly and interval such as every 2 days, every 2 weeks (See example in the appendix A.3 of RFC9922) can not be used to describe repetition, That is why we need to use numexecutions or execution-count to describe such repetitions, if the execution-count is set to 3, that means the maximum number of test iterations to run the scheduled OAM test is 3, does this make sense. And what if I want tests run indefinitely? [QW]:If execution-count is not set, it can be used to support test run indefinitely, but I am not sure conduct indefinitely test is useful? Is there any risk or possibility that such case is treated as exceptional case or failure cases, no strong opinion on this, if think such feature is useful. >>I think you should add some text as to why the test-ref list is ordered-by >>user. Does that influence the order in which tests are run? An implementor >>may want some normative text that states tests >>MUST be run in the set order. [Qin Wu] I have added some clarification text to justify why Ordered-by user is required https://github.com/vlopezalvarez/draft-contreras-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests/pull/83/changes [JMC] You’ve described what order-by user does, but not how an implementor should handle this. I was expecting text like, two tests scheduled to start or execute at the same time MUST be executed in the order specified by the user. Meaning, insert text that explains the order-by user was a deliberate choice by the authors and the meaning it has with respect to test execution. [QW]For OAM test sequence model consisting of a collection of OAM unitary tests, my argument is if use don’t set the order, different order for a collection of OAM unitary tests or different OAM test sequences, e.g., OAM test sequence 1 (Unitary test A, Unitary test B) and OAM test sequence 2 (Unitary test B, Unitary test A) Might produce different test results. For two unitary tests scheduled to start at the same time seems like another special case, we still want to make sure Each unitary test in the OAM test sequence follows specific order, to support this, Ordered-by user is required. Let me know what else is needed, maybe we can add a special example as you mentioned in the draft? If you have any suggested text, please also let me know. Joe ________________________________ From: Qin Wu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 1:56 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Victor Lopez (Nokia) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-05.txt Hi, Folks: v-05 has been posted, the main changes in v-05 and v-04 include: • Error Cause Indication Support • Clarify sequencing semantics • Pre-execution admission control • Add choice-case statement support for schedule types • Trigger for state transition (#48) • Performance impact analysis in the new operational consideration (#49) See diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-03&url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-05&difftype=--html -Qin (on behalf of coauthors) -----邮件原件----- 发件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 发送时间: 2026年3月18日 8:12 收件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 抄送: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-05.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-05.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) WG of the IETF. Title: A YANG Data Model for Network Diagnosis using Scheduled Sequences of OAM Tests Authors: Luis M. Contreras Victor Lopez Qin Wu Name: draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-05.txt Pages: 31 Dates: 2026-03-17 Abstract: This document defines a YANG data model to support on-demand network diagnosis using Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) tests. This document defines both 'oam-unitary-test' and 'oam-test- sequence' YANG modules to manage the lifecycle of network diagnosis procedures, intended for use by external management and orchestration systems (including SDN controllers and network orchestrators), rather than by individual network nodes. The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests/ There is also an HTMLized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests-05 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
