Re: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data and a new draft for IOAM flags

Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> Thu, 11 July 2019 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tpauly@apple.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 3664F120046; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=apple.com
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 E3iFxtYgVXKh; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nwk-aaemail-lapp02.apple.com (nwk-aaemail-lapp02.apple.com [17.151.62.67]) (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 5C582120019; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (nwk-aaemail-lapp02.apple.com [127.0.0.1]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp02.apple.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6B0X9Fr008141; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:33:12 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=sender : from : message-id : content-type : mime-version : subject : date : in-reply-to : cc : to : references; s=20180706; bh=/Uniru0Yxh8YsLWUy8uoLysSlSiWAW7uKWVyurf8isk=; b=ZNB496lzIXK9RttTKLrBJH39bhf6zLYWcnkrOJ8pyHAttYt0+q8oapKXi/rk+jBH4UbO asEpSc1n0EjtGryFpIGIjfVA7+WckyKfhZLd95YKAv7++AtWJWWRMi1LFP/wgH3vfsbL +yTBISg7daVfLOLoVS2qUog/euE/+q0hhjyZ+7T3Bj+OzBdGKQ2zC8rl2kZ1whzGycLD 7EGBPKc/HviSS36+doRPkBwXe84Zm3X8Uj1Gw4CdlPQiQOmTqI6tvyru3xgTvwt+zj4Z 73/MuQoZ2ZHxCiSEt9ZLKHSNcwqGihEp76NrARv+bqcpCEIk4b5iACIfid/zWvEu3sXo Wg==
Received: from ma1-mtap-s03.corp.apple.com (ma1-mtap-s03.corp.apple.com [17.40.76.7]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp02.apple.com with ESMTP id 2tjr7q6sdk-3 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:33:12 -0700
Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com [17.128.115.122]) by ma1-mtap-s03.corp.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.4.20190507 64bit (built May 7 2019)) with ESMTPS id <0PUG00NNPC6L4780@ma1-mtap-s03.corp.apple.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com by nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.4.20190507 64bit (built May 7 2019)) id <0PUG00K00BXAEY00@nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 9b213cd1120d7c4e8a1c55633309fe8e
X-V-E-CD: 8791b0db72e9982171b76c51d7d27d59
X-V-R-CD: 283960aae34e6496ce305cfd2a9a14c9
X-V-CD: 0
X-V-ID: 87dcb84d-9d03-4c83-a7d8-2495efab457d
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-07-10_08:,, signatures=0
Received: from tpauly.scv.apple.com (tpauly.scv.apple.com [17.192.171.37]) by nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.4.20190507 64bit (built May 7 2019)) with ESMTPSA id <0PUG009MPC6GHY60@nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: tpauly@apple.com
From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Message-id: <27A64C16-6088-4A64-9EC6-44C007628818@apple.com>
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F63CE674-40F9-46CC-A7C8-805C43024A60"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3560.7\))
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:32:40 -0700
In-reply-to: <F26000E1-369C-42A0-A284-8ECE15AE4DA0@cisco.com>
Cc: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>, "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB3629C8C5084B57ABE3B67E16DAFA0@MN2PR11MB3629.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <F26000E1-369C-42A0-A284-8ECE15AE4DA0@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3560.7)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-10_08:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/AHrODfe3SlSsjdcZKmGptNN3T34>
Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data and a new draft for IOAM flags
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: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:33:16 -0000

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for the question! One of the reasons we asked for documents to be split was to be able to isolate the conversations a bit more, and keep the scope of the already-adopted document to what the working group felt confident about.

With that in mind, the draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags should not be considered to be automatically adopted. Specifically, we do want to be able to have a discussion as a working group.

I really appreciate that these documents were split, and we’ll definitely make sure to spend time in Montreal to discuss next steps.

Thanks,
Tommy

> On Jul 10, 2019, at 5:13 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi、 IPPM Chairs,
> 
> One process question: draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags-00 is effectively a spin-off of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-05, splitting text from it into a new document, and adding WG discussion related to draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data. In that case, and since draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data is an adopted WG document, should draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags be effectively automatically adopted as a WG Doc?
> 
> Asking as that is my experience, when splitting a WG document into two.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Carlos.
> 
> 
>> On Jul 4, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com <mailto:fbrockne@cisco.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Back in the IPPM WG meeting in Prague, Tommy concluded on the discussion of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-05, that we should “separate the flag discussion into separate drafts and  then fold it into the data draft based on WG consensus.” (see IPPM minutes
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/minutes-104-ippm-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/minutes-104-ippm-00>). Unfortunately it took a bit longer than expected but today two new documents were published following Tommy’s conclusion:
>>  
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags-00>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06>
>>  
>> draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags-00 is a new document which provides the description of those flags that describe IOAM behavior not immediately associated to updating the IOAM data fields, i.e. the new draft took the text related to flags from the draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data. draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 is the associated update to the -05 version with the description of the flags removed.
>>  
>> With the -00 draft cut off still a few days away, it would be great to get comments on the split and even more so on the new ioam-flags draft, so that we could create a rev before the cut off (if required) and then try to close the discussion in Montreal.
>>  
>> Thanks much, Frank
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> ippm@ietf.org <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>