[Ioam] Alia Atlas' No Objection on charter-ietf-ioam-00-02: (with COMMENT)
"Alia Atlas" <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 14:07 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ioam@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ioam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 828291295E3; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 06:07:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.43.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148725407051.15968.11749691001912054091.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 06:07:50 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/3g89in82u0EaYhGoWY_b3YLAySc>
Cc: aretana@cisco.com, ioam@ietf.org, ioam-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [Ioam] Alia Atlas' No Objection on charter-ietf-ioam-00-02: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ioam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Discussion on In-Situ OAM <ioam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ioam>, <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ioam/>
List-Post: <mailto:ioam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam>, <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:07:50 -0000
Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-ioam-00-02: 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.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ioam/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) I share Suresh's question about the difference between SRv6 and IPv6 for this work. 2) There are common hardware router architecture issues that this work should at least consider. This may lead to slightly different requirements and guidelines for software and hardware. For example, a packet is commonly split into a header that is sent to be processed and the payload that is stored away and not accessible. How much data is available for the header can vary widely and is not always a power of 2. This came up significantly during NVO3 discussions about encapsulation approaches. This consideration makes me question the practicality of carrying, for example, lists of data collected. The length of the extra information also can impact the ability to compute flow entropy; at a minimum this can impact the actual path taken by the selected traffic. Another example is the issue of unordered TLVs being more expensive for hardware processing; given the possibility of an application being able to insert the iOAM data, this could have negative impacts on router capabilities. 3) I share Stephen's concerns about security aspects.