Re: [OPSAWG] Notes on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark

Dear authors, I finally got some time to read the draft. I have the same comment as Greg, Standard track seems more appropriate. Also, I have also read RFC9341 and Alt-Mark can also compute the delay between the ingress interface and the egress interface within a single node (node

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

Dear OPSAWG, I support the adoption of this draft. I think centralising the different used terms in one doc is useful. Regards, Alex > On 10 Apr 2024, at 20:05, Henk Birkholz wrote: > > Dear OPSAWG members, > > this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of > >>

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport

Hi all, I also support these documents proposing to export metrics through IPFIX, however not the way draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport is implemented. The advantage of IPFIX is aggregation directly at the node. The proposal in draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport is exporting directly the raw

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark

Dear Carlos and Adrian, As I said in the chat during the OPSAWG meeting, I also support this document. I don’t have a lot of specific examples of how the terminology are confusing, but I am co-authoring draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry where it started as an inband telemetry protocol

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04

Dear OPSAWG, I support the progress of this document. I only have a comment. Since the creation of the new NMOP WG, I wonder if this draft should be discussed in that WG too. There is “incident management” in the charter. Some of the related work such as

Re: [OPSAWG] ADOPTION POLL: A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data

Dear OPSAWG, I support the adoption of this draft. I think the environment context given by the YANG modules are important for the collection of telemetry data. Regards, Alex > On 2 May 2023, at 00:17, Joe Clarke (jclarke) > wrote: > > This work has been presented a few times now, and has

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Dear OPSAWG, Of course, as a co-author of the draft, I support the WG adoption. I do think we need this new information elements in IPFIX. I also would like to inform that I am working on an implementation in the open-source project Fd.io VPP of this draft using Trace-type IOAM

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR Poll on draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry

Dear OPSAWG, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Regards, Alex > On 22 Dec 2022, at 03:55, Tianran Zhou > wrote: > > Hi Authors and Contributors, > > Accompany with the WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all authors and > contributors to confirm on the list. > Please respond

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG LC: Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)

Dear OPSAWG, In the same lines, I just wanted to say that I implemented this draft in the open-source project Fd.io VPP (*) and found no issues. Alex (*) https://github.com/insa-unyte/vpp-srh-onpath-telemetry > On 5 Dec

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG LC: Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)

Dear OPSAWG, As a contributor, I believe this work is ready and necessary for SRv6 networks. I support the WG LC. Regards, Alex > On 30 Nov 2022, at 14:53, Joe Clarke (jclarke) > wrote: > > Hello, WG. As discussed at IETF 115, we want to conduct a WG LC for >

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR POLL: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh

Dear OPSAWG, No, I’m not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Regards, Alex > On 30 Nov 2022, at 14:55, Joe Clarke (jclarke) > wrote: > > Authors and contributors, please respond on-list as to whether or not you are > aware of any IPR that pertains to this work. > > Please state

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh

Hi, I have read this draft and support the WG adoption. I think it is very valuable work and believe it improves network visibility in SRv6 networks. Regards, Alex > On 18 Aug 2022, at 22:14, Joe Clarke (jclarke) > wrote: > > Hello, WG. We’d like to begin a two week call for adoption of