Re: [ippm] Refresh of IOAM drafts for "raw export" and "ethertype encap"

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

Hi Frank,

I recall this being presented several years ago. In that discussion, the discussion of allocating an Ethertype was something that was going to need to be brought up with IEEE. Was this done at any point?

I’d also like to understand how many people would intend to adopt and use these specifications; the ethertype specifically seems like it is not part of the remit of this group (unless we have a particular drive for it), and this could be progressed another way.

Thanks,
Tommy

> On Feb 21, 2022, at 3:57 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear IPPM,
>  
> new versions of 
> * “EtherType Protocol Identification of In-situ OAM Data” (draft-weis-ippm-ioam-eth-05) and
> * “In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX” (draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-06)
> are now available. 
>  
> I decided to refresh the drafts, to allow for a discussion at our upcoming meeting on the path forward for the two drafts. Both drafts are around for quite some time – and haven’t seen a lot of updates nor discussion recently. In the past, we considered both drafts as important: The “Ethertype encap”, because it allowed for a generic approach to carry IOAM data fields with GRE or Geneve; the “raw export”, because we considered a standards-based approach to export IOAM data from a node as important (given that right now, different implementations follow their own approach).
>  
> Tommy, Marcus – it would be great if you could allocate a brief slot on the IPPM WG agenda for the discussion, with the objective to decide whether we want to evolve the drafts and WG-adopt them.
>  
> Thanks a lot, Frank