[OPSAWG] Substitutes for the term "closed-loop telemetry"

[Diego R. Lopez]

Hi,

As you surely recall, I expressed serious concerns about the use of 
“closed-loop telemetry” in draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework and related docs.  
The term seems to me highly misleading, as “closed-loop” is usually applied to 
network control and orchestration, and it would be difficult to distinguish 
when we are talking of one “closed-loop” or another. I’d propose to use 
“just-in-time telemetry” or “reflective telemetry” to indicate how the 
telemetry is provided according to concrete and present needs (thus just in 
time), or as a result of an action based on self-knowledge (hence reflective)

Be goode,

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/

e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com
Tel: +34 913 129 041
Mobile:  +34 682 051 091
--



Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede 
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la 
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda 
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin 
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha 
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente 
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential 
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. 
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not 
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this 
communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode 
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa 
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica 
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização 
pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem 
por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e 
proceda a sua destruição
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] FW: [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call partial review of draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02

[Mehmet Ersue]

I think this draft should be reviewed and commented by OPSAWG WG before
publishing as "AD sponsored standard track RFC" obsoleting RFC 6728.
(RFC 6728 authors CCed).

BR,
Mehmet

-Original Message-
From: OPS-DIR  On Behalf Of Mehmet Ersue via
Datatracker
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 7:33 PM
To: ops-...@ietf.org
Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org;
draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model@ietf.org
Subject: [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call partial review of
draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02


Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it.

Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue
Review result: Not Ready

I reviewed the document "YANG Data Models for the IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX) Protocol, Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol, and Bulk Data Export
(draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02) as part of the
Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being
processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit
of the operational area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Obsoletes: 6728 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Current IESG state: I-D Exists

Summary:
The document aims to replace the YANG model for packet sampling (PSAMP) and
bulk data collection and export via the IPFIX protocol originally defined in
standard track RFC 6728 (Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow
Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols). The YANG
data model in the document also aims to be conform with the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342. FYI: The YANG
model is currently in review by Martin Bjorklund from YANG modeling
perspective.

The document further aims to decouple the PSAMP collecting process and the
IPFIX exporting process as well as defining an exporting process which does
not require SCTP support. The document tries to enable the export frequency
to be controlled by the exporting process, support of large IPFIX mediation
functions, and flexible referencing of interfaces. The new functionality
described above and the necessary restructuring of the model in RFC 6728
might become useful if done properly as an extension to RFC 6728.

However based on missing IPFIX and PSAMP expertise, unfortunately I'm not
able to give a solid statement on to whether the document is capable to
replace the standard track RFC 6728. Moreover the new functionality and
changes to the original model require thorough and in-depth review by IPFIX
and PSAMP experts.

Also as the document is largely based on RFC 6728, introducing the authors
of RFC 6728 as co-authors and involving them for review would very useful.
As a minimum they need to be involved as reviewers and mentioned in the
Acknowledgments section.

The document is proposed to publish as an AD sponsored draft, which is not
an issue per se. It is also not forbidden but very unusual that an AD
sponsored draft is proposed to replace a standard track RFC. I would be
highly interested to know why this path has been chosen.

However I believe it is a substantial issue that this draft has not been
discussed and supported in any IETF maillist until today. There was only a
short presentation in OPSAWG WG session one year ago without any record of
support. The authors are not known at IETF and have not written any other
than the current draft. The authors have most likely BBF background.

As IPFIX and PSAMP WGs have already concluded, I would like to recommend
_urgently_ to introduce the draft to OPSAWG maillist and ask for support. It
is IMO essentially important that the document gets discussed and reviewed
by IPFIX and PSAMP people available in OPSAWG and by the authors of RFC 6728
before publication. It also needs to be clarified whether the draft has been
already or is going to be implemented.

In case there is no support in OPSAWG WG for this draft to replace the
standard track RFC 6728 I believe it would be appropriate to publish it as
an "AD sponsored Experimental RFC". It can still become a standard track RFC
after getting implementation reports and appropriate community feedback on
its usage.

Sorry for not being the right expert reviewer for the draft content.
Therefore I've set the review result to "Partially Completed - extra
reviewer is to be assigned" and hope the draft gets a proper review in
OPSAWG WG and by the authors of RFC 6728.

Mehmet


___
OPS-DIR mailing list
ops-...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir

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

[OPSAWG] Opsdir last call partial review of draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02

[Mehmet Ersue via Datatracker]

Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it.

Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue
Review result: Not Ready

I reviewed the document "YANG Data Models for the IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX) Protocol, Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol, and Bulk Data Export
(draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02) as part of the Operational
directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by
the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
operational area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.

Obsoletes: 6728 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Current IESG state: I-D Exists

Summary:
The document aims to replace the YANG model for packet sampling (PSAMP) and
bulk data collection and export via the IPFIX protocol originally defined in
standard track RFC 6728 (Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols). The YANG data model in
the document also aims to be conform with the Network Management Datastore
Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342. FYI: The YANG model is currently in
review by Martin Bjorklund from YANG modeling perspective.

The document further aims to decouple the PSAMP collecting process and the
IPFIX exporting process as well as defining an exporting process which does not
require SCTP support. The document tries to enable the export frequency to be
controlled by the exporting process, support of large IPFIX mediation
functions, and flexible referencing of interfaces. The new functionality
described above and the necessary restructuring of the model in RFC 6728 might
become useful if done properly as an extension to RFC 6728.

However based on missing IPFIX and PSAMP expertise, unfortunately I'm not able
to give a solid statement on to whether the document is capable to replace the
standard track RFC 6728. Moreover the new functionality and changes to the
original model require thorough and in-depth review by IPFIX and PSAMP experts.

Also as the document is largely based on RFC 6728, introducing the authors of
RFC 6728 as co-authors and involving them for review would very useful. As a
minimum they need to be involved as reviewers and mentioned in the
Acknowledgments section.

The document is proposed to publish as an AD sponsored draft, which is not an
issue per se. It is also not forbidden but very unusual that an AD sponsored
draft is proposed to replace a standard track RFC. I would be highly interested
to know why this path has been chosen.

However I believe it is a substantial issue that this draft has not been
discussed and supported in any IETF maillist until today. There was only a
short presentation in OPSAWG WG session one year ago without any record of
support. The authors are not known at IETF and have not written any other than
the current draft. The authors have most likely BBF background.

As IPFIX and PSAMP WGs have already concluded, I would like to recommend
_urgently_ to introduce the draft to OPSAWG maillist and ask for support. It is
IMO essentially important that the document gets discussed and reviewed by
IPFIX and PSAMP people available in OPSAWG and by the authors of RFC 6728
before publication. It also needs to be clarified whether the draft has been
already or is going to be implemented.

In case there is no support in OPSAWG WG for this draft to replace the standard
track RFC 6728 I believe it would be appropriate to publish it as an "AD
sponsored Experimental RFC". It can still become a standard track RFC after
getting implementation reports and appropriate community feedback on its usage.

Sorry for not being the right expert reviewer for the draft content. Therefore
I've set the review result to "Partially Completed - extra reviewer is to be
assigned" and hope the draft gets a proper review in OPSAWG WG and by the
authors of RFC 6728.

Mehmet


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