Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Dongjie (Jimmy)]

Hi Spencer, Stewart, Joel, 

Thanks for the discussion about the congestion adaptation. We agree the 
reactive congestion adaptation may need further investigation. 

Thus in order to solve Mirja's comment, we plan to make that example more 
generic with something like:

"For example, the collected information could be used for traffic monitoring, 
and could optionally be used for traffic optimization according to operator's 
policy."

Best regards,
Jie

> -Original Message-
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:03 AM
> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF ; Stewart
> Bryant 
> Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; Mirja Kuehlewind
> ; IESG ;
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-commun...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)
> 
> The conclusion earlier work on congestive response routing reached was that
> one needed to pin the specific routing decision until the selected path became
> infeasible.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 12/4/18 10:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> > Hi, Stewart,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant
> > mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 30/11/2018 19:23, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> >> This is Mirja's comment, but ...
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind
> >> mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> >> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection
> >>
> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
> >> to all
> >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> >> cut this
> >> introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Please refer to
> >> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> >>
> >>
> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> >> here:
> >>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-communit
> >> y/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> --
> >> COMMENT:
> >>
> >> -
> >> -
> >>
> >> One comment on section 1:
> >> "For example, they can shift some flows
> >>   from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN
> >> controller
> >>    or PCE [RFC4655]."
> >> I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for
> >> dynamic traffic
> >> adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. C
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm agreeing with Mirja here.
> >>
> >> We've spent a LOT of time not recommending dynamic traffic
> >> adaptation. Probably half my responsibility as AD for ALTO was
> >> repeating "you can't react based on changes to that attribute
> >> without taking chances on oscillation" like it was a mystical
> >> incantation, and I wasn't the first AD to have that conversation
> >> repeatedly.
> >
> > Yes, I understand the ARPA net had exactly that problem at one stage
> > and had to be converted from using a delay based metric to a fixed
> > metric.
> >
> >>
> >> I would be happy to hear that all those problems are solved, but I
> >> haven't heard that yet. Do the right thing, of course.
> >>
> >> Even "can shift some flows from persistently congested links to
> >> underutilized links" would cause me less heartburn.
> >
> > There is no such thing as permanent in network paths!
> >
> > Like many control problems the first order solution is to damp with
> > a suitably long time constant, but  infinity, i.e. permanent, is not
> > a satisfactory choice either.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, that's where I was headed (stated more coherently).
> >
> > Saying "I should do something, because the network path is STILL
> > congested" is safer than "I should do something because the network
> > path is congested", so now we're talking about suitable definitions of
> > "STILL". I was shooting for that with "persistent", and agree that
> > "permanent" path characteristics is a happy idea we aren't likely to
> > see in practice.
> >
> > Do the right thing, of course ;-)
> >
> > Spencer
> >
> > - Stewart
> >
> >>
> >> Spencer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [OPSAWG] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11

[Dongjie (Jimmy)]

Hi Joel, 

Thanks for your review. 

We will replace the references in abstract with text in next version. 

Best regards,
Jie

> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 4:38 AM
> To: gen-...@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
> opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11
> 
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
> the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
> before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> .
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2018-11-29
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-24
> IESG Telechat date: 2018-12-06
> 
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
> 
> Major issues: N/A
> 
> Minor issues: N/A
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> As id-nits notes, references should not be included in the abstract.
> 

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Dongjie (Jimmy)]

Hi Mirja, 

Thanks a lot for your review and comments. 

How about we replace that sentence with something like:

"For example, the collected information could be used for traffic monitoring, 
and could optionally be used for traffic optimization according to operator's 
policy."

Best regards,
Jie

> -Original Message-
> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2018 12:13 AM
> To: The IESG 
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-commun...@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou
> ; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou
> ; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/
> 
> 
> 
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
> 
> One comment on section 1:
> "For example, they can shift some flows
>   from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN controller
>or PCE [RFC4655]."
> I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for dynamic traffic
> adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. Can you maybe choose a
> different example. E.g use of IPFIX for troubleshooting or more generally
> network monitoring? Thanks!
> 

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/



--
COMMENT:
--

Please expand IPFIX in the abstract.

§2: Is there a reason not to use the new boilerplate from RFC 8174?

§8:
- "does not directly introduce any new security issues"
What does "directly" mean in context? Should we be concerned about indirectly
introduced issues?

-2nd paragraph: I am skeptical of a claim that, because private information
might be available from other vectors, a mechanism has not introduced new
privacy issues. Is there no possibility that someone who had not deduced
privacy-sensitive information by the other means could now get it via this
mechanism?


___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] is there any work in Ops Area for monitoring network functions?

[Linda Dunbar]

OpsaWG:

I2NSF WG has a draft on data models (and information model) of monitoring 
network security functions: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hong-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06

It includes data models to retrieve System Alarms, System Events, counters, NSF 
Events/logs, etc.

Want to see if there are data models already specified by Ops Area for 
monitoring network functions which might have some common attributes that I2NSF 
can import.

Thanks, Linda Dunbar



From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong [mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 6:35 PM
To: Linda Dunbar mailto:linda.dun...@huawei.com>>; 
Yoav Nir mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>
Cc: i2...@ietf.org; 
skku_secu-brain_...@googlegroups.com;
 Sangwon Hyun mailto:swhyu...@gmail.com>>; Mr. Jaehoon Paul 
Jeong mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Request for WG Adoption Call on NSF Monitoring Draft

Hi Linda and Yoav,
As we discussed the last Bangkok meeting,
I have merged the two drafts of Information Model and Data Model
for NSF Monitoring into a new draft called 
draft-hong-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06:

- Two Information and Data Model Drafts
 . draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring-07
 . draft-hong-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-05

- A Merged Data Model Draft
 . draft-hong-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06
 . https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hong-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06

The NSF monitoring is very important to manage the I2NSF security service system
in a reliable and scalable fashion.

Could you start a WG adoption call for this draft?

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul
--
===
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.p...@gmail.com, 
paulje...@skku.edu
Personal Homepage: 
http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg