[ippm] Quick comment on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Tue, 05 January 2021 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 8F7843A0D4A for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:34:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7nP2uRkc4xWd for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:34:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 D785D3A0D48 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:34:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id D0371EEA1DC99BBDF21B for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:34:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1052YPSv011973 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:34:26 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:34:25 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 10:34:25 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc5ff3d031b6e67f12
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202101051034258505599@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 1052YPSv011973
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/0rwnqtOEF5ywtnp4fxCz9fcU7m0>
Subject: [ippm] Quick comment on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 02:34:41 -0000

Hi authors,

While updating "IOAM over BIER" draft, I noticed that in Section 8.1 of IOAM-Data draft 128 code points are defined for IOAM Option-Type Registry, nevertheless in whether draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options or draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh, IOAM Type is an 8-bit field, could 256 code points instead of 128 code points be defined?

Best Regards,
Xiao Min