Re: [Detnet] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-12: (with COMMENT)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Erik,
thank you for supporting this work. Please find my response to your
question about the DetNet MPLS over non-UDP encapsulation below.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 10:07 PM Erik Kline via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-12: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-12
> CC @ekline
>
> * comment syntax:
>   - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
>
> * "Handling Ballot Positions":
>   -
> https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
>
> ## Comments
>
> ### S3.3, S3.4
>
> * Do the same comments apply to DetNet-style MPLS encap'd over IP or GRE
>   directly, i.e. without UDP as described in RFC 4023?
>
>   Maybe nobody runs that, so I'm genuinely curious.
>
GIM>> That is an interesting question. As I understand it, based on the
analysis of the requirements, it was determined that the IP/UDP
encapsulation for DetNet MPLS flows is most suitable. That is my
understanding of RFC 9025 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9025/>.