Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/

Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com> Thu, 19 May 2022 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3914FC20D71B for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2022 21:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=thoughtspot.com header.b=bdVkd+LN; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=thoughtspot-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.b=rgze0vXo
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I79Qkx9oH5_h for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2022 21:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-0055fe01.pphosted.com (mx0b-0055fe01.pphosted.com [205.220.176.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14FABC20D706 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2022 21:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0211452.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0055fe01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 24J2iXNv022902 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2022 21:47:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thoughtspot.com; h=mime-version : references : in-reply-to : from : date : message-id : subject : to : cc : content-type; s=proofpoint; bh=5gQxdrKJtZa7cUAEq6CmFYwklLbpqsMoD2VN32L7OXY=; b=bdVkd+LNtEUqqACZq08hoPG3hsnsp2UovyeM8ZNND9oB8+trfA0s+b438gTiVUQaZSMs 7GlTIJcve4wl2V+JvXk5AEzH69Sf850V/rR7OYTL0ilyFLlScWRH0hP9n9jakuyg0QS2 5zTms8LlSv5cA8UpmDTBfwFa5ZlVqZqJTO+7CLejX2QVUgIfEWHohce4N2g+5eGfpkGN 8Vi1cCF5wM2d6zHkzRRvzP+IqGGZH5xQs8peQLg6fVAcxMhQK6PE9pdjLsLj/3s2hpzO nSpNnqx953u6L+blvVNKgxTsx4T0WUnDhMbx7l3xPWhjBdmYzA0SaBHLP8fh0po+rMs4 cQ==
Received: from mail-qt1-f197.google.com (mail-qt1-f197.google.com [209.85.160.197]) by mx0b-0055fe01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3g5c4f0a82-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2022 21:47:13 -0700
Received: by mail-qt1-f197.google.com with SMTP id d15-20020ac85d8f000000b002f3b3b7e0adso3344759qtx.20 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2022 21:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thoughtspot-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5gQxdrKJtZa7cUAEq6CmFYwklLbpqsMoD2VN32L7OXY=; b=rgze0vXoX732okwCbVt5pqC/l03vNQg1m6Z4YWZMPfjA/p6mikuSjGFZOyS7RQPCdt WRelcPCmSEVHsbMx4/8H0r3vBtuMYl+0Q+1JOhfdaXO2OFVIupRRn60/noDr5xF1FFFK 8FwHX0+n9psdWNmtMOK02MhrdYXfoaOFrsB7xYOZXwwUFja+Pu4MC06bmaxCAi1Ofs1L dtHZLOX6y0dpqiJZJxnrGeC5j0kKiPnj+N3aZqXUaT4PPeTXFTc9CFdjTyirAPqQrZeM yzJGKU9XSyyQd7m5fEwrvtCuRhTENbSzMPV67M+kKuUKGx/mDHR42iI0d3YrNfv6TEwJ 7GQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5gQxdrKJtZa7cUAEq6CmFYwklLbpqsMoD2VN32L7OXY=; b=KeS5Q+TJXzAEJWWVcx2e52FFTwO3npf8Cj/Lb0Wz9mNajL4SR7/bZzvOybXJIm+sjp YKNz6Qn7Q3FASCkOzEWnpctWXcniiu9HeAYHiyrT6Pnhm9KsFB6025mZwZXfLCiaR6oy eVFYj5U32p5Hhi4JOYjJVZiVKSVgAYFVtch4k4x3mL0ozvlBuDqjfOiup2vTzHyqG4Jh bWvm3Fv2/04csB0y2ROjkdTO9WOS7gxsT6uBwHiTpsCNnTTPvgRHi9xxpdOeF2huHHIp nJpaZyPsC2dD0jU0XF69D4niXGbByv/8WP9P4qBnHEnJk11JVSMdLkkU4nP8vAFk4jG8 uzWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5328shs8FniaiVh1wQsa4Ue0Irwqs0ByEfXG8Qzg5EpTVcKcTL0x u9WXbvkMUXETMSyP5XqI9ffcY3KCGkOAOpwzogcW1lRL4PQg6B4fmxqc1hiaU0n9HFfog8b2qGC YF7PvwZ34VwF6jctnVYDz
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7f04:0:b0:2f3:d6d6:8406 with SMTP id f4-20020ac87f04000000b002f3d6d68406mr2505295qtk.509.1652935632754; Wed, 18 May 2022 21:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7shnaqiM+XNWinLQZqZrgwUGVUi/0FNpJFE7BL5PsKm11PL/HyzjICv/HtrTBNV1QmEmRWuQJCbDu9woRxC8=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7f04:0:b0:2f3:d6d6:8406 with SMTP id f4-20020ac87f04000000b002f3d6d68406mr2505284qtk.509.1652935632263; Wed, 18 May 2022 21:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR13MB4206C91446BA5FBBDA69E233D2FF9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAMFZu3N03E-nWYJNik91e+X=gr3s2TVF03ZCM8i02ru4_Q82og@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmWUZcUN2jnpUuyhTmkNpwvh=2prBZDGinWe2v-b3n8+MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMFZu3N5+GdFk13oWbi8F1qhgRNsKpSFwza61SG2oeMW9TvaLQ@mail.gmail.com> <525_1649935673_62580539_525_487_2_d0a4949b3d9c4424a0261012c7ce6188@orange.com> <CA+RyBmX3MdqVX5=hEsO+9SMbpXw+enwnm_qb4+-6smqbsTPPwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMFZu3NZBgKXHrktn04LbwW33S+j+kGG5hx2A+1+jJ8aasCRag@mail.gmail.com> <14665_1651047374_6268FBCD_14665_484_6_addb2a5f712d4307a463d0582cc0a8a0@orange.com> <CAMFZu3O-vEAnrBE6rhuFh_POPD5E2i_bHvdBx=GUjRKxk3AOYw@mail.gmail.com> <3dba81e6-3a42-3643-dc98-a750891d47f5@joelhalpern.com> <CA+RyBmU+o5spc8M_54Voe+4E_A2M+Q2oE6LyJgSN4+=MCtVrcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMFZu3MxRx5T3XgTJfBoCpgz1pH_4tNKSdk=NJ0DXELgnCRFxw@mail.gmail.com> <1e2f0696-658d-29d4-71f2-b96a3e088f4c@joelhalpern.com> <CAMFZu3McUxjVTrAoT6hOWOQtiWkKg1=vMpznHzTMs-Yha=oHRA@mail.gmail.com> <c7de197d-6e0f-bc13-7798-2ed968efabd3@joelhalpern.com> <CAMFZu3Of0SgCdWnnrQ0Jbt6-4+pFMSMPFDeNGkX2vbktGjPR=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMFZu3Of0SgCdWnnrQ0Jbt6-4+pFMSMPFDeNGkX2vbktGjPR=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 10:17:01 +0530
Message-ID: <CAMFZu3P-1aHJg3J3k4+UnZ5G3ZsPjKx16Ogs2zK=6qcbJ1kWCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Med Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>, sfc@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000032b73d05df5611b8"
X-Proofpoint-GUID: i1vIfETnycDdiNQL_LodkTLZJ8IT9ntk
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: i1vIfETnycDdiNQL_LodkTLZJ8IT9ntk
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.874,Hydra:6.0.486,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-05-18_09,2022-05-17_02,2022-02-23_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=5 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2202240000 definitions=main-2205190030
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/0b5C5SCeQXPHBtpudoVXvDOAMiA>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 May 2022 09:52:52 -0700
Subject: Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 04:47:19 -0000

Hi Joel,

We have published a -10 version of the draft based on this discussion.
Please check
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-10.txt and let us
know if it is ready to progress for IESG review.

Thanks,
Shwetha

On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:02 AM Shwetha Bhandari <
shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com> wrote:

> Ack, will add text to this effect.
>
> Thanks
> Shwetha
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022, 9:23 AM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>
>> If we do not tell the implementors that there can be multiple iOAM
>> headers, and how they are required to process them, then some implementors
>> will follow logic we do not want.
>>
>>
>> For example, you have various selective iOAM headers.  So an SFF looks at
>> the next header to check for iOAM.  Seems it is iOAM.  And then seems the
>> content is iOAM it can ignore.  A naive implementation might well stop
>> right there and proceed with normal SFF processing.  Since you don't want
>> that, just write into the spec what the WG expects.
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Joel
>> On 5/3/2022 11:22 PM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote:
>>
>> Why do we need to call that out explicitly in this draft? Isn't that part
>> of header processing anyway?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Shwetha
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2022, 6:24 AM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Can we have just a sentence or two saying that if there are multiple
>>> iOAM options, the SFF must check all of them for relevance and act on all
>>> relevant ones?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Joel
>>> On 5/3/2022 8:26 PM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Greg, Joel,
>>>
>>> The purpose of these options are different. Reiterating the use cases
>>> described in the draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment draft : hop by hop tracing
>>> related options are -pre-allocated, incremental,direct export. The
>>> edge-to-edge option is not collecting trace but metrics at the edge and
>>> helps in correlation e.g sequence number is inserted and used to identify
>>> packet loss rate. The proof-of-transit option is used to prove that the
>>> packet has traversed the check points in the networks.
>>> There is also IOAM namespace that is used to collect specific data types
>>> in trace options and a node can be configured to process trace options with
>>> a specific namespace, this is useful when we have nodes with varying
>>> implementation of trace option data types defined.
>>> Restricting IOAM option in NSH to a specific number will make it
>>> difficult to deploy. Hence I don't see a need to update the current draft
>>> to add any of this restrictions. Let's use draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment
>>> to understand the use cases and deployment modes.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Shwetha
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2022, 3:01 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>> thank you for highlighting this question, I've missed it.
>>>>
>>>> As we've discussed earlier, several IOAM trace options have been
>>>> defined:
>>>>
>>>>    - pre-allocated
>>>>    - incremental
>>>>    - edge-to-edge
>>>>    - proof-of-transit
>>>>    - direct export
>>>>    - hybrid two-step
>>>>
>>>> I cannot find a scenario when using more than one IOAM trace option
>>>> that could be beneficial, and useful for an operator. I think that if there
>>>> is no use case, then the restricting number of IOAM trace options used is
>>>> reasonable and helps implementors in developing interoperable
>>>> implementations.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 2:42 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (Sorry, catching up on some emails I missed.)
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to allow multiple iOAM headers (up to the WG) then I think
>>>>> the document needs to be clear on the meaning.  If there are multiple are
>>>>> all supposed to be processed, just the top one until something removes it,
>>>>> a random one of the receivers choice?  (Yes, that last is unlikely.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>
>>>>> Joel
>>>>> On 4/27/2022 4:44 AM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Med,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the confirmation and quick review.
>>>>>
>>>>> On,
>>>>>
>>>>>> This means the new requested TBD_IOAM value will also be a valid
>>>>>> next protocol. However, I wonder whether IOAM in IOAM in NSH is really
>>>>>> something you want to have. If not, I suggest the text is updated to
>>>>>> exclude it from the allowed value in the above excerpt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Per earlier discussion in this thread, quoting Frank's mail here for reference:
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, I don’t think that draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh would be the
>>>>>> appropriate place to discuss and restrict deployment options. E.g., I’m not
>>>>>> sure why we’d want to restrict a deployment to using a single IOAM header
>>>>>> only. E.g., one could think of using different headers for different
>>>>>> namespaces or groups of namespaces for operational reasons. IMHO, such a
>>>>>> discussion – if we really need it - would belong into
>>>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment, rather than into a draft that defines the
>>>>>> encap of IOAM into NSH.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the text on Next Protocol should be as is. We should not add
>>>>> restrictions on number of IOAM headers that could be added to the packet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Shwetha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:46 PM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shwetha, all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The changes look great. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one specific point not addressed in previous replies. This
>>>>>> is related to this text:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Next Protocol:  8-bit unsigned integer that determines the type
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          header following IOAM.  The semantics of this field are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          identical to the Next Protocol field in [RFC8300].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means the new requested TBD_IOAM value will also be a valid next protocol. However, I wonder whether IOAM in IOAM in NSH is really something you want to have. If not, I suggest the text is updated to exclude it from the allowed value in the above excerpt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other than that, I think that the draft is ready to move forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Med
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *De :* Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>
>>>>>> *Envoyé :* mercredi 27 avril 2022 10:06
>>>>>> *À :* James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>om>;
>>>>>> sfc-chairs@ietf.org
>>>>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>om>;
>>>>>> Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>;
>>>>>> sfc@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>om>;
>>>>>> draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh@ietf.org; Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [sfc] WGLC for
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NGDq-VFOnDYhCxrwRIz1KbT5hb_RKKqKigks-nyqK1RKq5UgpwytWb7clzmlN3o0X0XBWL0KnE3aQfL7wrrx5ZezQN_YdhHpnETuWA$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear SFC chairs,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A new version of the draft I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh has been submitted
>>>>>> per the discussion in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-09
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-09__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NGDq-VFOnDYhCxrwRIz1KbT5hb_RKKqKigks-nyqK1RKq5UgpwytWb7clzmlN3o0X0XBWL0KnE3aQfL7wrrx5ZezQN_YdhFd29kDew$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we please progress this draft to IESG if there are no further
>>>>>> comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shwetha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 6:41 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thank you for the proposed resolution. I agree with Med, direct
>>>>>> normative reference to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet seems like the logical
>>>>>> conclusion of our discussion of the use of the NSH O bit. Please note that
>>>>>> we're referring to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet in the Active SFC OAM draft,
>>>>>> e.g.,:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The O bit in NSH MUST be set, according to [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 4:27 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer we go for an explicit reference to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet
>>>>>> rather than “any update to RFC8300”. This is consistent with the usage in
>>>>>> the other OAM draft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Med
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *De :* Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>
>>>>>> *Envoyé :* jeudi 14 avril 2022 12:06
>>>>>> *À :* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>om>;
>>>>>> Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>;
>>>>>> sfc-chairs@ietf.org; sfc@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; James Guichard <
>>>>>> james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>gt;; Tal Mizrahi <
>>>>>> tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>gt;; draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh@ietf.org
>>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [sfc] WGLC for
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!LWQuxxxKpUum5gUoK44-znjehj2YRtlGMOATxfRVSc-7JOrPsk4BA4iP0oLQE4d0rObPhOCG_1iiipywftwMIMOEWh8lJI4$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Med, Greg,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about this text :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “The O-bit MUST be handled following the rules in and any updates
>>>>>> to [RFC8300] ."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet  will update RF8300 and there
>>>>>> could be others in future?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shwetha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 9:24 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that the text you've quoted is helpful. I would suggest
>>>>>> changing references from [RFC8300] to [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet] throughout
>>>>>> that paragraph.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 7:56 AM Shwetha Bhandari <
>>>>>> shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Med,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the details: this is exactly what we had before the latest
>>>>>> revision:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *4.2 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-06*section-4.2__;Iw!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIpJPfzrvI$>.  IOAM and the use of the NSH O-bit*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    [RFC8300] defines an "O bit" for OAM packets.  Per [RFC8300 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8300__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIpEB5AbbE$>] the O
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    bit must be set for OAM packets and must not be set for non-OAM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    packets.  Packets with IOAM data included MUST follow this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    definition, i.e. the O bit MUST NOT be set for regular customer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    traffic which also carries IOAM data and the O bit MUST be set for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    OAM packets which carry only IOAM data without any regular data
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    payload.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was removed as per the discussion in this thread. Please check
>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/srMit5zE8UseNOhxknAw_dqvj6M/
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/srMit5zE8UseNOhxknAw_dqvj6M/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIp-CeLfeA$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like we are going in a loop here. This definition of SFC OAM
>>>>>> packet to include the OAM data that comes in inner packets via the next
>>>>>> protocol header chain is introduced in draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet to update
>>>>>> the RFC8300.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim, What are you thoughts on this? Should we reintroduce the above
>>>>>> text ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Shwetha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>>>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>>>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>>>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>>>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ippm mailing list
>>>>> ippm@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!KzP7tEXj2r_E1qNyQ90q9rykJ0iG0HA0CecIGBFXEIXiWITYay7wwoC0HbiFfO2GyUarxht3JEY45vcV4uCtZ8Xkud0uv58$>
>>>>>
>>>>