Re: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022)

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Xiao:

I’m sorry I missed this email until today.

1. on the IFIT versus other IPPM terms.

I will ask the IPPM chairs to help walk through IPPM standard terms.
draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-05.txt has been accepted, and
will be published as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-00.txt

The authors have been notified that feedback from the IPPM
chairs may require a revision in their draft.

2. On the reference to the draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state

Are you concerned about interactions between the BGP
process (IBGP) and the insitu OAM process within a IGP domain?

Or are you concerned about the information passed between
AS in the e-BGP process between domains (e.g. AS1 --- AS2)
Interacting with the insitu OAM process?

Or both?
Your comment is a bit vague even with the draft reference.

I need some more details prior to discussing your concerns with the
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities author team and the IPPM chairs.

Clarity in the defined interactions between insitu OAM and
is important (e.g. some specified interaction or no interaction

cheers, Susan Hares


From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:29 PM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022)

Hi Sue, Please see inline... Cheers, Xiao Min ------------------Original------------------ From: SusanHares To: Tianran Zhou ;肖敏10093570; Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <="" div="">
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tL2E1ZDE4NDA2MTNhYWI2NWUzM2Y1YmE4MGY2MTNlMTg2LzE2NTY2NDYxNzMuNTQ=#key=97e478972e52464bcfa24121be036750>  FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>


Hi Sue,



Please see inline...



Cheers,

Xiao Min

------------------Original------------------

From: SusanHares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

To: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;肖敏10093570;

Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;

Date: 2022年06月30日 21:05

Subject: RE: [ippm]  IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022)

" _ue_custom_node_="true">

Xiao Min:

My understanding is that you are concern about the abbreviation (IFIT) rather than the substance of the draft.

[XM]>>> I suggest the authors to use the terms already defined in IPPM.





This BGP draft deals with passing this information between egress and ingress BGP routers

“This document introduces extensions to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)

to advertise supported IFIT capabilities of the egress node to the ingress [BGP] node… “

(page 2).

Your comments deal with this technology.

[XM]>>> I suggest the authors to add reference to draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state and explain the relationship between them.





Thank you,

Sue

From: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 11:46 PM

To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: RE: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022)

I do not see any overlap here.

All the information, the usage and the extended protocol are quite different.

Tianran

-----Original Message-----

From: ippm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 10:22 AM

To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022)

Hi Susan,

Thank you for the response.

Please see inline my comments with [XM]>>>.

Best Regards,

Xiao Min

------------------Original------------------

From: SusanHares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

To: 肖敏10093570;

Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;

Date: 2022年06月30日 05:28

Subject: RE: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022) " _ue_custom_node_="true">

Xiao:

Thank you for your feedback regarding this draft.

I need clarification on your feedback.

The introduction of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-05.txt

states IFIT is an abbreviation used by their draft as denoted in their abstract:

“This document defines extensions to BGP [RFC4271] to advertise the In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) capabilities.”

Since this abbreviation is shared with:

draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-03 (ready for WG LC) in their abstract:

“In-situ Flow Information Telemetry

(IFIT) refers to network OAM data plane on-path telemetry techniques, in particular the most popular are In-situ OAM (IOAM) and Alternate Marking.”

Are you objecting to their abbreviation or the terms behind the abbreviation?

[XM]>>> Since I started work in IPPM around 2017, both Alternate Marking and In-situ OAM were already there and I've been used to them. If the IPPM WG decides to introduce a new/second term to scope Alternate Marking and/or In-situ OAM,  that's fine to me. However, I don't believe it's the common practice to put a new/second term to IPPM techniques from the outside of IPPM.

2.  Would you please provide additional details on the overlap between draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt and draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state.

[XM]>>> As I said, the term IFIT brings some confusion to me, in IPPM, Alternate Marking and In-situ OAM are targeted by separate documents. If I understand draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05 correctly, this document covers Capabilities  Discovery for both Alternate Marking and In-situ OAM, only edge to edge. As a comparison, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-03 covers Capabilities Discovery for In-situ OAM (if necessary, the same mechanism can be used for Alternate Marking as well), both edge  to edge and hop by hop.

Thank you Susan Hares

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 5:06 AM

To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022) Hi Susan, Thank you for this notice, very helpful.

I have two concerns as follow:

1. As far as I know, iFIT is not a standardized term defined in any IPPM RFC or WG draft, however iFIT includes Alternate Marking and In-situ OAM which both are defined in IPPM. I'm not sure it's appropriate, that looks out of order to  me.  The right order IMHO is to define iFIT in IPPM first (if necessary), and then to define protocol extensions (e.g. BGP extensions) to support iFIT.

2. In IPPM there is draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state that achieves the similar function intended by draft-wang-idr-ifit-capabilities, the two documents looks overlapping to some extent.

Best Regards,

Xiao Min

------------------Original------------------

From: SusanHares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;

Date: 2022年06月24日 23:29

Subject: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022) _______________________________________________

ippm mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=www.ietf.org&t=h.eJxNjMEOgyAQBX_FcG5YEdlST_7KqlBJBYxgbGz675VbrzPvzYft28K6is05r6kDOI6DO5Mtj9sTPLnFU4DFpeyCjeDW1bNbxV7lEky-RqJWGh-igTTTZlIfpnPmY_RAahK6rVFIogGVkdKqgXRtL2KERhCoEFsUd8lVW6qmVN-OIvcuNP2ZTQnxMRQ5FfmHvj_LlDjR.MEUCIBJVLtDy2Gp9ZDYxbmJAw802h2BJWtHAIpuboXmvLRwBAiEA5jxyc40hxnCVNgU5J1VlOijYsEBvUdc2UIDtw2Z5_TE>

Marcus, Tommy and ippm WG:

The IDR WG would like your feedback on two drafts in IDR:

1. draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-03.txt – The IDR WG is planning WG LC on this draft in August.

2. draft-wang-idr-ifit-capabilities-05.tt – The IDR WG has consensus on adopting this draft.

Please let us know if you have any concerns regarding these drafts.

We note that these drafts reference:

1) draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark

2) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data

3) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export

4) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags

5) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these two drafts.

I am one of the IDR WG co-chairs and the shepherd for these two drafts.

You can reply to this thread or provide information to your WG chairs.

Cheers, Susan Hares

_______________________________________________

ippm mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=www.ietf.org&t=h.eJxNjMEOgyAQBX_FcG5YEdlST_7KqlBJBYxgbGz675VbrzPvzYft28K6is05r6kDOI6DO5Mtj9sTPLnFU4DFpeyCjeDW1bNbxV7lEky-RqJWGh-igTTTZlIfpnPmY_RAahK6rVFIogGVkdKqgXRtL2KERhCoEFsUd8lVW6qmVN-OIvcuNP2ZTQnxMRQ5FfmHvj_LlDjR.MEUCIBJVLtDy2Gp9ZDYxbmJAw802h2BJWtHAIpuboXmvLRwBAiEA5jxyc40hxnCVNgU5J1VlOijYsEBvUdc2UIDtw2Z5_TE>