Re: [Ippm-ioam-ix-dt] IPPM IOAM Virtual Meeting

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

Correction: the next IOAM virtual meeting will be on May 6th, 2020 at 06:00 UTC.
I will send an invite.

Cheers,
Tal.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:10 AM Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We did not hold a meeting today, as some of the key participants could
> not make it.
>
> The next IOAM virtual meeting will be on April 29th, 2020 at 06:00 UTC.
>
> Cheers,
> Tal.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 7:25 AM Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > This is a reminder about the IOAM virtual meeting that will take place
> > tomorrow, April 22nd, 2020 at 06:00 UTC.
> > (Webex details below)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tal.
> >
> >
> > JOIN WEBEX MEETING
> > https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m01ca07b3ab108b039b17591f76d32019
> > Meeting number (access code): 618 651 455
> >
> > Meeting password: 2F5p3pwdaMb
> >
> > Global call-in numbers
> > https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/globalcallin.php?MTID=mfcaeaa27dfd0ef716a64ec2105c2f6a1
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:35 AM Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Reminder: the next IOAM virtual meeting will be on April 22nd, 2020, 06:00 UTC.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Tal.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:43 AM Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> IPPM IOAM Design Team
> > >> Virtual meeting
> > >> April 1st, 2020, 06:00 UTC
> > >> Webex meeting
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Attendees:
> > >> Shwetha Bhandari, Frank Brockners, Barak Gafni, Greg Mirsky, Tal Mizrahi, Mickey Spiegel.
> > >>
> > >> Minutes by Tal Mizrahi.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Summary:
> > >> ========
> > >> - The IPPM virtual interim meeting that will take place later today was discussed.
> > >> - Next virtual meeting will be on April 22nd, 2020, 06:00 UTC (the usual time).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Detailed Discussions:
> > >> =====================
> > >> - Frank: the IPPM Interim is today. We sent the slides to the chairs. If there are any last minute changes - just use Google docs. The slides highlight the main issues that need to be discussed.
> > >> - Barak: what was the open issue in the flag draft?
> > >> - Tal: the loopback flag on the reverse path - transit nodes need to know that the packet is on the reverse path. Three alternatives: (1) new flag, (2) new IOAM type, (3) clear RemainingLen on the reverse path. We need to choose one of them.
> > >> - Mickey: is the RemainingLen solution applicable to the preallocated version? Does not seem to work, since the decapsulating node will not have an indication of how much of the preallocated option was used.
> > >> - Greg: are we allowing functionality for any flow, or for a specific flow? What is the data model?
> > >> - Barak: we do not want to limit to a specific model.
> > >> - Greg: we want to be able to apply IOAM to specific flows. Applying it on all the traffic may be too much.
> > >> - Barak: we want to allow flow specific IOAM, but not mandate it.
> > >> - Frank: the draft says that it is up to the operator whether to apply IOAM to all flows or subset.
> > >> - Greg: maybe we should specify that the loopback function should be applied to specific flows based on a data model.
> > >> - Mickey: we have been a bit avoiding this issue.
> > >> - Greg: we need to use our resources carefully. What is the purpose of the loopback flag?
> > >> - Barak: it has been discussed.
> > >> - Greg: comment about the slides. Regarding IPv6 option - we are not necessarily ready for WG LC because the data draft should be done first, to avoid loading the WG members.
> > >> - Frank: right, the chairs have typically sequenced these processes. It is not urgent.
> > >> - Mickey: regarding the IPv6 code points - the most painful point is the first three bits, and that implementations that do not know what it is will pass it along, but implementations that do know what it is should drop it.
> > >> - Frank: right, it may be a discussion topic.
> > >> - Greg: the data draft is a priority.
> > >> - Frank: right.
> > >> - Mickey: yes.
> > >> - Barak: it sounds like two independent decisions.
> > >> - Frank: right, but all the encapsulation drafts have a normative reference to the data draft.
> > >> - Mickey: do we need anything from 6man?
> > >> - Shwetha: we will probably need WG LC to go through 6man as well.
> > >> - Frank: either a formal WG LC, or just a call for feedback from 6man - it is up to the chairs.
> > >> - Mickey: slide 5 - we are missing "not".
> > >> - Tal: I will send an update of the slides.
> > >>