Subject: Re: [Ioam] [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 03:26:58 +0000

Hi, Linda,

Moving the discussion to [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>, other aliases to Bcc.

Please see inline.

—
Carlos Pignataro, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."

On Jan 30, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Alvaro,

It is great to see a mailing list being created for interested parties to discuss.

Question on the objectives of the mailing list:
In-situ OAM (IOAM) provides real-time telemetry of individual data packets and flows. It is based on telemetry information which is embedded along within data packets

So the key differences between In-situ OAM and BFD is that BFD uses synthetic data packets (i.e. dedicated OAM packets), whereas In-situ OAM are encoded into the user data packets. Correct?

The key difference is about what the protocol is used for and not in the how. You quoted “provides real-time telemetry of individual data packets and flows”, and that has no intersection with BFD, which provides liveness verification on an end-to-end basis.

Does it mean “Telemetry information that doesn’t have user payload” is out of the scope?

The goal of the creation of the new list and early threads is to discuss the charter, including its scope.

Thanks!

— Carlos.

Thanks, Linda

From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: 2017年1月30日 14:10
To: Bert Wijnen (IETF) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

Bert:

As Frank indicated, the new [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> list will be used for discussion: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam

If you have suggestions about possible Chairs, or want to volunteer, please let me know.

The current intent is to charter a WG by IETF 98.  Given the discussions on this list, we believe there is interest in the problem space and in defining a solution.

Thanks!!

Alvaro.

On 1/24/17, 4:00 AM, "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

- Where will you send the proposed charter for discussion?
   Both OPS and RTG area mailing lists (or maybe OPSAWG instead of OPS)?
- Are you gonna do a call for volunteers to co-chair the WG?
- It sounds like you are not gonna do a BOF first, right?
   that is OK with me.

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg