.org
<mailto:i...@ietf.org>
*抄送：*opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
*主题：* Re: [ippm] 回复: FW: WG Adoption Call for
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01
Dear all,
I agree with Thomas on a couple of points.
What is important is that, for acc
@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ippm] 回复: FW: WG Adoption Call for
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01
Hello Mr. Claise,
please see my comments beginning with [ZQ].
Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com<mailto:li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com>
...@hotmail.com
*Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2023 8:43 AM
*To:* Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS ; Tianran
Zhou ; ippm
*Cc:* opsawg@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: RE: [ippm] 回复: FW: WG Adoption Call for
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01
DearThomas,
Please see my further discussion beginning with [ZQ
: [ippm] 回复: FW: WG Adoption Call for
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01
Dear Zhenqiang,
Thanks a lot for the feedback. Much appreciated.
I do not disagree that YANG push isn't capable of exporting control and
forwarding plane metrics. However it is not the best choice in terms
: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RE: [ippm] 回复: FW: WG Adoption Call for
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01
Hello Thomas,
As summarized in table 1 in RFC9232, gRPC is an application protocol, which can
be used to export all the telemetry metrics for Management Plane, Control
Plane
=40huawei@dmarc.ietf.org;
i...@ietf.org
抄送： opsawg@ietf.org
主题： RE: [ippm] 回复: FW: WG Adoption Call for
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01
Dear Zhenqiang,
Thanks a lot for your feedback.
I presume with gRPC you are referring to YANG push (RFC 8639, RFC 8641,
draft-ietf-netconf-udp
.
Best wishes
Thomas
From: ippm On Behalf Of li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 4:51 PM
To: Tianran Zhou ; ippm
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] 回复: FW: WG Adoption Call for
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01
Hi Tianran and all,
Why not use one protocol
