[OPSAWG]Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11

Tero, We could potentially ask the RFC-editors to do this task? Or maybe they do it automatically? Regards, Benoit On 5/14/2024 4:31 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com writes: In section 8.3 change This type MUST be encoded per

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

Dear all, On 3/19/2024 10:40 AM, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote: Dear Justin, Dear OPSAWG and IPPM working groups Thanks a lot for the presentation at IPPM. I believe that this work needs further refinement by defining also IPFIX entities for IOAM which allow a decomposition of each IOAM

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

Dear OPSAWG co-chairs, Thanks for this summary email. Much appreciated. This draft will be presented in NMOP, in the context of "Anomaly detection and incident management" topic from the charter. Regards, Benoit (NMOP co-chair) On 2/29/2024 7:44 AM, Henk Birkholz wrote: Dear OPSAWG members,

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

Hi Alex, Adrian, Let's check with Rob (I am on it) Regards, Benoit On 2/13/2024 10:20 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: I am also as confused as Alex :-) The OPSAWG charter says:   The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for   the development and publication of RFCs dealing

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPv6] [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

greed, but they (Cisco) have to say whether this is an error or not, not the community. Regards, Benoit If there are known errors in it, they should be reported in an Errata.  The ADs who approve errata will take the correct action. Bob On Feb 6, 2024, at 1:19 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: Hi Andrew,

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

that I don’t have strong feelings about this.  The different int sizes never seemed all that useful to me anyway since mostly it is the size sent in the template that matters. -Andrew *From: *IPFIX on behalf of Benoit Claise *Date: *Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:37 PM *To: *mohamed.boucad...@

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

Hi Paul, On 1/23/2024 12:14 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:     4.3. forwardingStatus     In particular, the registered Abstract    Data Type is unsigned8, while it must be unsigned32. Why must it be? */[Med] As per the definition in RFC7270./* I've opened an

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] deprecating ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions IEs RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

Dear all, Same view here, I believe this is ok. Regards, Benoit On 1/23/2024 3:03 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Re-, Paul suggested to tag these two IEs as deprecated in favor of the new full IEs. I do personally think this is OK (especially given what Andrew reported at:

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh updates RFC 7012? 5610? was (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-09.txt)

raft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-09.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) WG of the IETF. Title: Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements Authors: Mohamed Boucadair Benoit Claise Nam

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Adoption Call for draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02

Dear all, See in-line. On 1/17/2024 12:51 PM, Henk Birkholz wrote: Dear OPSAWG members, this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02.html ending on Wednesday, January 31st. As a reminder, this I-D describes an

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel/ ; IPFIX forwardingStatus

e the fact you use the right term: information model. This information model might collect information from different data model sources. And one of them might be IPFIX. Regards, Benoit On 06/11/2023, 13:03, "Benoit Claise" mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>> wrote: CAUTION:

Re: [OPSAWG] ipfix-fwd-exceptions - Request WG adoption

Dear Chaitana, If finally read the draft. You mentioned: There is an existing IE 89 - forwardingStatus[IANA-IPFIX ]but it allows a very limited number of exceptions to be reported from the system (6-bit reason code) But at the same time, you

[OPSAWG] draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel/ ; IPFIX forwardingStatus

Hi John, https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#forwarding-status Regards, Benoit ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] FW: New Version Notification for draft-opsawg-poweff-00.txt

Hi Marisol, Is there any link with this series of documents at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eman/documents/ ? Granted, these are a little old. MIB and not YANG modules, but some concepts are similar. Regards, Benoit On 10/27/2023 7:07 PM, Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) wrote:

Re: [OPSAWG] IETF 118 opsawg / OpsA tentative agenda

Hi Joe, You forgot the draft-havel-opsawg-digital-map-01 slot. Regards, Benoit On 10/25/2023 4:51 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Hello, WG and ADs.  The tentative agenda for our two opsawg sessions for IETF 118 is up.  We are close to capacity, but we still have some buffer time.  Please

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] Full or Truncated EHs RE: Some comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh

Hi Paul, I looked at this one below. On 10/19/2023 11:02 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: 3.2 Data Type Semantics: - this is not an identifier. It seems be a new type consisting of (type, count) tuples. */[Med] Will double check this one. /* You are right that

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] Desambiguite unknwon EH vs. unknown upper layer headers RE: Some comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh

Eric, On 10/6/2023 4:19 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Re-, Your comment about “unknown L4” reminded me another comment you had about how to disambiguate unknown EH vs. upper layer headers: Our local copy includes now the following NEW text:    If an implementation determines

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes: tcpOptions/ipv4Options bit mappings

-Andrew *From: *IPFIX on behalf of Aitken, Paul *Date: *Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:55 PM *To: *mohamed.boucad...@orange.com , opsawg , Benoit Claise *Cc: *ip...@ietf.org *Subject: *Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes: tcpOptions/ipv4Options bit mappings [EXTERNAL] CAUTION

[OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-quilbeuf-netconf-configuration-tracing-00.txt

o R. Lopez , Benoit Claise , Diego Lopez , Jean Quilbeuf , Qiong Sun , Sun Qiong , Thomas Graf A new version of Internet-Draft draft-quilbeuf-netconf-configuration-tracing-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Benoit Claise and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-quilbe

[OPSAWG] Fwd: Welcome to the "Digitalmap-yang" mailing list

FYI. As mentioned by Rob right now in OPSAWG/OPSAREA Regards, Benoit Forwarded Message Subject:Welcome to the "Digitalmap-yang" mailing list Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 14:36:13 -0700 From: digitalmap-yang-requ...@ietf.org To: benoit.cla...@huawei.com Welcome to

Re: [OPSAWG] documents moving to IVY?

Hi Michael, https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ivy/about/ is already chartered :-) And no, those document will not move to IVY, as they address a different problem. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-havel-opsawg-digital-map-00#name-network-inventory-ivy-propo Note: there was a side

[OPSAWG] Digital Map! drafts and IETF Side Meeting

Subject: Digital Map drafts and IETF Side Meeting Dear all, Following up on the Modeling the Digital Map based on RFC8345: Sharing Experience presentation in

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentation//FW: IETF 117 Preliminary Agenda

-quilbeuf-opsawg-configuration-tracing, why not in NETCONF? Best, Tianran -Original Message- From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 3:08 AM To: Tianran Zhou ; opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentation//FW: IETF

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentation//FW: IETF 117 Preliminary Agenda

Hi Tianran, We would like to request some presentation slots: - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-collected-data-manifest/, either Jean Quilbeuf or myself, 10 min - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-quilbeuf-opsawg-configuration-tracing/, either Jean Quilbeuf or myself,

[OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-havel-opsawg-digital-map-00.txt

Dear all, We would like to introduce this new draft "Modeling the Digital Map based on RFC 8345: Sharing Experience and Perspectives draft", which follows the Modeling the Digital Map based on RFC8345: Sharing Experience

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption call for IPFIX

Hi WG, On 6/6/2023 7:19 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: Hi WG, As we agreed on IETF 116, this mail starts a two weeks working group adoption call for the following three related drafts: Simple Fixes to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) IANA Registry

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR poll for 3 IPFIX drafts

Hi, "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to these drafts." Regards, Benoit On 6/6/2023 8:11 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: Hi WG, Accompany with the adoption call, this mail starts an IPR poll for the following drafts. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/

Re: [OPSAWG] Andrew Alston's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-13: (with DISCUSS)

Dear all, Bruno & Rob are right: "I would expect ipfix to report what’s in the packet rather than what the IETF would like the packet to be". This is a basic IPFIX principle. Bruno is specifically right when he wrote: "removing this section from the document will likely not change the

Re: [OPSAWG] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Med, Good point. Omitting the IE would work as well. Regards, Benoit From:mohamed.boucadair To:Thomas.Graf ;jgs Cc:The IESG ;draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh ;opsawg-chairs ;opsawg Date:2023-05-25 21:05:58 Subject:RE: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-12: (with

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt

Agreed with Med here... on top of removing " by SRH Experts", as he mentioned in his initial post. Regards, Benoit On 5/22/2023 8:49 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Re-, The designed experts for this sub-registry should be familiar with SRH. I think your concern can be fixed by

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt

Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Authors : Thomas Graf Benoit Claise Pierre Francois Filename: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt Pages : 28 Date: 2023-05

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-04

, the registered Abstract Data Type is   unsigned8, while it must be unsigned32.  The following update fixes   that issue.  The description is also updated to clarify the use of   the reduced-size encoding as per Section 6.2 of [RFC7011]. Cheers, Med *De :*Benoit Claise *Envoyé :* vendredi 5 mai 2023 11

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-04

Dear Thomas, Thanks for spotting this. See inline. On 5/3/2023 4:07 PM, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote: Dear OPSAWG, Med and Benoit Regarding section 6.2, forwardingStatus (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-04#section-6.2). Section 4.12 of RFC 7270

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

Hi Joe, No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft Regards, Benoit On 5/1/2023 11:20 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Authors and contributors on the To: line, please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR that pertains to this work. Please state either:

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

Hi Joe Yes, a bis a cleaner solution. Regards, Benoit On 4/4/2023 10:01 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Hello, WG.  I hope everyone that traveled for 116 is back home and healthy. One of the items that came out of the 116 meeting was that this document is in decent shape for a WGLC. We

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-07

Hi Rob, Thanks for your review. We posted a new draft version. Htmlized:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh Diff:https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-08 See inline for some replies. Regards, Benoit on behalf of the

[OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-07.txt

ation for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-07.txt Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:06:24 -0700 From: internet-dra...@ietf.org To: Benoit Claise , Pierre Francois , Thomas Graf A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-07.txt has been successfully submitted by Thomas Graf and p

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentation//FW: [116all] IETF 116 Preliminary Agenda

Dear Tianran, I would like to get some time to present an update of draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest The authors are busy updating the draft. 15 min would be sufficient. Regards, Benoit On 2/27/2023

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element

Dear OPSAWG chairs, all, Thanks for great summary Med. Let me add to this. At the last IETF meeting, while Med put his (first) focus on the TCP control bits (draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update IETF draft), we discussed actually fixing the IPFIX registry as we discovered multiple sources of

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] FW: CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element

Hi Paul, Thanks for engaging. On top of what Med mentioned... When you mention "non-interoperable IPFIX devices", I would like to understand which interoperability risk do we speak about 1. the IPFIX protocol. Not really 2. the Exporter. It should export what it observes. 3. the Collector.

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element

Dear all, I support this adoption. Actually, the companion document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/ should follow the same path, ideally at the same speed. In my mind, this is a single effort to clean up and update the IPFIX IANA registry. However, I

Re: [OPSAWG] [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 accounting information, monitored at high frequency, such as IPFIX flow records metering data plane traffic, should be exported directly from line cards, without proxying to the route processor. As such, UDP

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

Dear all, I support WG adoption.  Obviously, since I am a co-author you may say. Sure, but let me stress one important aspect in this work. This would be the first draft that would specify an IPFIX IE that would also be a performance metric. When we initiated what became RFC 8911 (registry

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

Dear all, On 1/5/2023 9:48 AM, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote: Dear Jean, Thanks a lot for the comprehensive review and comments. They all make perfectly sense. I merged them into the -02 version

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05.txt

e segment. Thank you. Cheers, Med *De :* Benoit Claise *Envoyé :* mercredi 4 janvier 2023 18:43 *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; thomas.g...@swisscom.com; opsawg@ietf.org *Cc :* pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr *Objet :* Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05.txt Hi Me

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05.txt

raft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh- 05.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet- Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG of the IETF. Title : Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP F

Re: [OPSAWG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Lars, Thanks for your review. We addressed all your comments in the newly posted version v13. Regards, Benoit On 12/12/2022 12:55 PM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote: Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: No

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric, Thanks for your review. We addressed all your comments in the newly posted version v13. Regards, Benoit On 12/12/2022 6:22 PM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: No

Re: [OPSAWG] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12

Thanks Christian. Regards, Benoit On 12/20/2022 8:01 PM, Christian Huitema via Datatracker wrote: Reviewer: Christian Huitema Review result: Ready My review of version 11 of this draft was making a number of suggestions. These suggestions have largely been addressed in the version 12 of the

Re: [OPSAWG] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Roman, The new IETF draft version v13 has been posted with the changes discussed below. Thanks for your review. Regards, Benoit On 12/15/2022 2:14 AM, Jean Quilbeuf wrote: Hi Roman, Thanks for your review, You will find our answer below. Best, Jean -Original Message- From:

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, Benoit On 12/22/2022 3:55 AM, 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 if you are

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, Benoit On 12/22/2022 3:55 AM, 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 if you are

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

Hi Rob, Do we get the green light to request the IANA early allocation [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7120#section-2] since there are multiple implementations already? Regards, Benoit On 12/15/2022 9:32 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Closing this WG LC out.  A great deal of

Re: [OPSAWG] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Paul, Thanks for your review. On 12/15/2022 1:01 AM, Paul Wouters via Datatracker wrote: Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email

Re: [OPSAWG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric, On 12/12/2022 2:07 PM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote: Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC

Re: [OPSAWG] Manifest need? Re: draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest

Hi Alex, On 11/28/2022 8:30 PM, Alexander Clemm wrote: I find this response confusing.  To me this reads that if a non-IETF telemetry feature is used, the data manifest would in fact be up to the implementation i.e. proprietary.  However, it would seem to me that to be useful, the

Re: [OPSAWG] Manifest need? Re: draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest

Hi Alex, Sorry for the delay in replying. You are right in the sense we don't define new piece of information. I stressed it on the first slide during the IETF 115 •Goal is not to expose new information via YANG but rather to define what needs to be kept as metadata (or Data Manifest)

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

Hi Med, On 11/30/2022 4:12 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Hi all, This version addresses all the comments raised in my previous review of the document. I have only very few comments: * Section “5.9.  srhActiveSegmentIPv6Type”: please add the pointer to the IANA registry

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

Hi, "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" Regards, Benoit On 11/30/2022 1:55 PM, 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 either: "No, I'm not

Re: [OPSAWG] MINUTES: IETF 115 OPSAWG/Ops Area meeting

Hi Joe, Regarding: A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data There are two distinct parts, which should be combined IMO. 1. * Alex Clemm: What is different from using the subscription ID from YANG Push? * Benoit: If you lose access to the device, how will you backtrack to get

Re: [OPSAWG] [ippm] New Version Notification for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-00.txt

Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 3:32 PM To: Alex Feng ; Alex Huang Feng ; Benoit Claise ; Graf Thomas, INI-NET-TCZ-ZH1 Subject: New Version Notification for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft

Re: [OPSAWG] [IANA #1240167] IANA question regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01

Hi Amanda, Very good, we will produce a new version of the draft with this proposal below. Regards, Benoit On 10/11/2022 3:00 AM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote: Hi Benoit, I took this to our technical director, James Mitchell, and he wrote, "These segment URLs [ipfix.xhtml#something] are not

Re: [OPSAWG] [IANA #1240167] IANA question regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01

Hi Amanda, IPFIX IE doctors, See inline. On 9/30/2022 4:58 AM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote: Hi Benoit, all, Dear IPFIX doctors, (IANA), We would like to get your feedback regarding the IANA section in draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01. Especially, the two following information elements:

[OPSAWG] IANA question regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01

Dear IPFIX doctors, (IANA), We would like to get your feedback regarding the IANA section in draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01. Especially, the two following information elements: srhFlagsIPv6: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01#section-5.1

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

served in the IPFIX export according to Section 8 of [RFC7011].    If the network node is not capable to export IPFIX for more than one    SRH, it MUST export IPFIX for the active SRH. Best wishes Thomas *From:*mohamed.boucad...@orange.com *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 2:22 PM *To:* Benoit Claise

Re: [OPSAWG] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-08

Hi Michael, See inline. On 9/22/2022 2:10 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: Benoit Claise wrote: > Thanks for your review. > And sorry for the delay: I was not too sure how to react to this > review. Another review after WGLC, to be integrated in IETF LC? > D

Re: [OPSAWG] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-08

Hi Michael, On 9/15/2022 12:19 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: Michael Richardson wrote: > I have read draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture at the > request of a few people. This is not part of any directorate review > (that I remember, or that shows up in my review

Re: [OPSAWG] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-08

Hi Michael, Thanks for your review. And sorry for the delay: I was not too sure how to react to this review. Another review after WGLC, to be integrated in IETF LC? Document shepherd review needed to addressed for the document to progress? Anyway, see inline. Attached you will see diff with

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

ully agree that the spec has to indicate “Data Type Semantics:  flags” for that IE. The same would apply for the srhSegmentEndpointBehavior IE. Please let me know if I’m missing something. Thanks. Maybe we speak cross purposes. Shall we set up a quick call? Regards, Benoit Cheers, Med *De :*Ben

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

Hi Med, Thanks for your comments. I visited IANA in Philly to validate this propose, but we could re-evaluate & discuss about it. We need a registry because just telling that we take the value from

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

Hi Joe, Just in case it was not clear, I obviously support the adoption call (as a contributor) Regards, Benoit On 8/18/2022 10:14 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Hello, WG. We’d like to begin a two week call for adoption of this work.  Even as an individual draft it has already received

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

Hi Qin, Thanks for your review. See inline. On 8/23/2022 7:39 AM, Qin Wu wrote: Support this draft, with a few comments and suggestions below: 1.It will be more reasonable to place use section before protocol definition section. On the principle yes. However, we explained the use cases

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture and draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang: ready to progress

Dear OPSAWG chairs, The authors have addressed all the points mentioned during the WGLC and mentioned the YANG doctor. Therefore, we believe those two drafts are ready to progress. Regards, Benoit ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org

[OPSAWG] WG adoption of draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh?

Dear OPSAWG chairs, From the meeting minutes at https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-114-opsawg, I see: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh presentation: Thomas presenting: * Addressed all open issues and checked with IANA * Any questions? Henk: We should be able to call for

Re: [OPSAWG] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-06

Hi Michal, Jean posted a new version of the draft, to address your comments. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang/ Regards, Benoit On 7/11/2022 11:07 AM, Michal Vaško via Datatracker wrote: Reviewer:

[OPSAWG] FW: New Version Notification for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-inband-telemetry-01.txt

. Regards, Thomas, Alex, Benoit -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 10:44 AM To: Alex Feng ; Alex Huang Feng ; Benoit Claise ; Thomas Graf Subject: New Version Notification for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-inband-telemetry-01.txt A new version

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentation

Hi Tianran, I would like to present a new version (to be posted, just in time, today) of  draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest 15 min should be sufficient. Note that I will be physically at the IETF. Regards, Benoit On 6/27/2022 4:38 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: When you request a time

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentation

Hi Tianran, I would like to present draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest. 15 min would enough. Thanks, Benoit From:Tianran Zhou To:opsawg Date:2022-06-27 04:39:42 Subject:Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentation When you request a time slot, please include the following information: The

Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-05

Hi Dhruv, Thanks for reviewing the draft. See inline. On 6/26/2022 4:04 PM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: Hi WG, I think this work is very useful. I have some comments (also see my review of the architecture I-D). Minor - In the text of the I-D, we should explain that the symptoms are targeted at

Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-05

Hi Med, Thanks again. See inline for some points On 6/27/2022 10:44 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Hi Jean, Thank you for the update and the replies. This version looks better. Please see below some pending comments on -06: * I don’t think that the “id” MUST be globally unique”,

Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-03

Hi Dhruv, Thanks for your review. See inline On 6/26/2022 4:03 PM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: Hi WG, I think this work is very useful. I have some comments - Minor - We need a reference or some discussion of what we mean by "intent" before we jump into SAIN in the Introduction. We could reuse the

Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-03

Hi Med, Many thanks for your deep review. We agreed with most comments, which we are busy inserting in a new version. The only comment I would not keen on acting upon is to change the title.  However, you have a good point that we should mention earlier in the doc that this architecture is

Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-05

Dear all, We have been receiving many comments during the live of these drafts. Lately, some good feedback from Tom. I believe these drafts are ready. Note: I am a little bit biased as co-author... Or maybe I spent so much time on these drafts that I am convinced. Regards, Benoit

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR poll for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-05 and draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-03

Hi, On 6/9/2022 10:16 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: Dear authors and contributors, As part of the working group last call, please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR that pertains to draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-05 and

Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-02

the relation between healt-score and health-score-weight. I left the counter so far, but changed it to 64 bits. Best, Jean -Original Message- From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) [mailto:jcla...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday 24 March 2022 12:42 To: Benoit Claise ; Jean Quilbeuf ; opsawg@ietf.org

Re: [OPSAWG] Comment on draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-02

Hi, I've been looking through (most of) the diffs. I believe my initial comments are addressed. I'm also looking forward to the mapping text. In the end, I would like to make sure that we can reuse this SAP concept with the Service Assurance for Intent-based Network drafts, to be able to

Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-02

Hi Joe, On 3/24/2022 11:48 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: On 3/9/22 11:13, Jean Quilbeuf wrote: Hi Joe, Thanks for your comments. First, what is the purpose of assurance-graph-version? It's a 32-bit counter that can increment when something goes in and out of maintenance (+2). I can

[OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest-02.txt

ements (from Med, among others) Regards, Benoit A new version of I-D, draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Benoit Claise and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest Revision: 02 Title: A Da

Re: [OPSAWG] Specifying protocols in draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest

awg-collected-data-manifest-00-rev%20Med.doc> Some of the context information is not specific to telemetry, but can be applied in other contexts to assess the reliability of collected data. Generalizing the concept would make sense. Cheers, Med *De :* OPSAWG *De la part de* Benoit Claise *En

Re: [OPSAWG] Specifying protocols in draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest

to the device configuration. T. *From:*OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Benoit Claise *Sent:* Wednesday, February 9, 2022 10:42 PM *To:* Tianran Zhou ; Jean Quilbeuf ; opsawg *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] Specifying protocols in draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest

Re: [OPSAWG] OPSAWG 113 AGENDA: First draft agenda posted

Joe On 3/2/22 13:56, Benoit Claise wrote: Hi Joe, I would like to present a quick status update: service assurance (10 min would be sufficient) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-service

Re: [OPSAWG] OPSAWG 113 AGENDA: First draft agenda posted

Hi Joe, I would like to present a quick status update: service assurance (10 min would be sufficient) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture data manifest for

Re: [OPSAWG] Specifying protocols in draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest

Hi Tianran, On 2/9/2022 2:04 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote: Hi Jean, I am a little confused about this manifest? Can we just read from the device about the configuration? We can get all the  running information. I'm not sure whether this is a generic question or whether your question relates to the

Re: [OPSAWG] IETF DLMO draft side-meeting

Hi Marisol, I'll join. Regards, Benoit On 1/25/2022 9:39 PM, Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) wrote: Dear OPSA WG, Wewould like to extendthisinvitation to the OPSAWG to participate and collaborate in the open discussions for those interested in ///DMLMO draft/

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: Transport Layer Security Verion 1.3 (TLS 1.3) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol Version 3 (SNMPv3)

On 11/19/2021 7:40 PM, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: Let me add one additional observation: RFC 6353 has been a blueprint for the YANG data model for SNMP configuration defined in RFC 7407. The ietf-x509-cert-to-name module, which is part of RFC 7407, defines a tls-fingerprint, which is also using

[OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest-00.txt

-opsawg-collected-data-manifest-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Benoit Claise and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest Revision: 00 Title: Data Manifest for Streaming Telemetry Document date: 2021-10-25 Group

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-02.txt

: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG of the IETF. Title : Service Assurance for Intent-based Networking Architecture Authors : Benoit Claise

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Adoption Call for draft-lear-opsawg-ol-01

On 10/4/2021 11:06 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: I find this work useful, and I previously commented that I think having this work with instance data would also be potentially useful. +1 with the instance data combination. Regards, B Joe On 10/4/21 16:01, Henk Birkholz wrote: Dear

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-00.txt

Hi Marisol, From the table of content and abstract, this draft covers exactly the "business telemetry" concept described at https://www.claise.be/telemetry-model-driven-telemetry-operational-telemetry-business-telemetry-you-name-it-telemetry/ I plan to review the draft one of these days.

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-01.txt and draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-01.txt

Dear all, We updated the two drafts based on the feedback received during the WG adoption. Practically, we incorporated all the feedback from Med Boucadair (very detailed review, thanks), Greg Mirsky, and Qiufang Ma. On top of that, for the architecture draft:     o Added needed subservice

  1   2   >