IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Fri, 10 February 2017 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ioam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ioam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBD7129C92; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:12:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sN0JTj6aFPD4; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C8A6129C81; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:12:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1158; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486764721; x=1487974321; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=3T4oPjLX1BcsO7MOJ62hhAZNqNko2roRymIb92KG8Ac=; b=TVMbyd6gAxSzVjmrTkKr2C2CfRHN/eDknPZgS4BRFH5LfmcfQL50UWrv LDluIWZ4qUi5Qgws/zbr0khxoYuAPM3z5BJjTFlVR6rPIft5HR6KmCS9C /itKy9m1B3/zHUVwbgfGSSdCG1KA6I02fIebOnsSOOK4qgIVcXiyK1jN9 E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B+AQDPOZ5Y/5tdJa1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1KBageDUooIkg6IDI0qgg2GIgIagmE/GAECAQEBAQEBAWIohGkBAQEDASMRRQULAgEIGAICJgICAh8RFRACBA4FiWADDQiwK4Ilhy0NhBMBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuFQYIFgmqCUYUJLoIxAQSIfoxWhWQ6AY16hBmRBYhLgWqIXwEfOH5PFU0BhjB1iRKBDAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,142,1484006400"; d="scan'208";a="179262091"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Feb 2017 22:12:00 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1AMBx54016393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:12:00 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:11:59 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:11:58 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)
Thread-Index: AQHSgjmziLYbR6WLQk6B61NU2m1JJqFf5E4AgAECTQCAAFm/gIABjSIAgABXRgA=
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:11:58 +0000
Message-ID: <59F25558-51E2-4F21-BAB7-3BD52CD966B9@cisco.com>
References: <148657872835.4362.4208222446069276322.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKKJt-cwinU_f+Kgb+PuUfufZdAL788ZyYjd_2o3UCLwE5FJmQ@mail.gmail.com> <5EADB2FC-9112-4C6F-956D-C9B0A7FA405F@cisco.com> <6F7EEE4C-2D31-438E-B672-49FEED30C1A4@cisco.com> <CAKKJt-dULSk669N+xT-5CHPgWBH9-sXJV3bd8R704yuED7X3Yw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-dULSk669N+xT-5CHPgWBH9-sXJV3bd8R704yuED7X3Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.168.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <237B407DA8035E4EA716F24AB33389A1@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/VjJzlh26H9-SzZ7bkQ60kag3vO8>
Cc: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "iab@iab.org" <iab@iab.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "ioam@ietf.org" <ioam@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)
X-BeenThere: ioam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:12:03 -0000

Spencer,

A couple of quick follow-ups:

> On Feb 10, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I am not sure there is a strong connection to TSVWG — but on the other hand, it might not hurt to call it out.
> 
> I was actually thinking about other reasons to include TSVWG, but just to cover one question - I'm assuming that adding IOAM attributes to a user data packet will increase the MTU size. If that's true, that point alone would make TSVWG awareness worth calling out.
> 

Indeed.

> >> Is there any connection with IPPM?
> 
> Yes, there is, as already mentioned above.
> 
> I see that this linkage is under discussion further down, so I'll comment there if I have something to contribute.
> 
> Thanks for the speedy response!

Thank you!

> 
> Spencer
> 

Carlos.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email