Re: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Well, I'm with Frank here.
A normative reference from a protocol spec to a "deployment guidelines" 
draft doesn't seem right, from a process point of view,and from a 
publication timeline point of view.
I mean that we would have to wait until we have 
draft-brockners-opsawg-ioam-deployment-02
published before publishing the protocol specs. In other words, we 
should be deployment experience before publishing the protocol specs. It 
doesn't seem right.

Regards, Benoit

On 4/28/2021 3:44 PM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote:
> I'd follow your suggestion, but IMHO it should be informative.
> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data defines the IOAM data-fields.
> The ops draft is supposed to provide a best common practice (hence the intended status) for how a deployment uses IOAM data-fields.
> But it does not mean, that the ops draft would describe the one and only way how IOAM data-fields would be used in a deployment.
> Given that the ops draft is one conclusion for deploying IOAM (potentially out of several others), this very much smells like an "informative" reference to me.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks, Frank
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Dienstag, 27. April 2021 23:18
>> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>> Cc: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; Al Morton
>> <acm@research.att.com>; ippm-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
>> data@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with
>> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>
>> I guess the question is whether the ops draft should be a normative reference?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:38 AM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=
>> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Roman,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your review - and sorry for the delay in responding.
>>> Please see inline ("..FB").
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
>>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 24. März 2021 16:06
>>>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org; ippm-chairs@ietf.org;
>>> ippm@ietf.org;
>>>> Al Morton <acm@research.att.com>; acm@research.att.com
>>>> Subject: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12:
>>>> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>>>
>>>> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: Discuss
>>>>
>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
>>>> all
>>> email
>>>> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory
>>>> paragraph, however.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please refer to
>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Please clarify what constitutes the edge or boundary of the IOAM
>>>> domain
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm