Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags Re: Regarding draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 31 July 2019 18:53 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 4E1DC12006D; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 6hgUA4gR71q2; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18C6C12004F; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id y17so42120017ljk.10; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gZzZogq5KiNnoltkarA3nn+bfPyZiZk5bWp/I/bJjbM=; b=WEsviOzwuj4Wyp5oTt6d2AktK8eP2Ur8RScuDhF6OygKoqVt94T+EppQJvSvDSwOfl ikTMmfjmrf+v+DeDeWaIA2HXEWkXe3PyhuXMzOwIfMQ+o4UAotz836Ajz6Q5D7lNU3Y3 CI6ZnCOO76cdvh/nOlsJPQIFq2StxpK3i+h+2RYX45Ot9FWI9I5+Ue6ts9W/QHH9QqBF bZtsHp8vSOVxJr3QbadMGdVBwDC9pZpudOnxK+VnwyqaM7CqtddZuBZg9GfCjq861XWy nNKcYiQAxIev3bVCUwAsnM0NOSYdEQV4TUQqpTHn8AbMNeNuOv60T1QQxx75G9ax3rgd K1jg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gZzZogq5KiNnoltkarA3nn+bfPyZiZk5bWp/I/bJjbM=; b=jA6mVTG65cci0W2wUL0HAVFD/s1+hhZItruEhmqYrrvJ+bbH37cAORNMUuK5y5+Spb Iv2wirM+ZA/PsKM7JX5Y/Yc3dCFnGr7vA2soDGsFJ9Ub90U04jGnhEnQc5e0U4W9kzbz NqCh/I4tbKVP8RZTiJrtR84lq1YZ70bSx9SZj58NY3jDmUkH21teNiVQlhlW9HgGcLS3 R5BRywp2usW3N/OXo0y+cL49znW9fq8/5fs/Gn74kzOHwfQyogDjUXz4Ry4wy4SXPHIf mHW9moJLDS/AtDoY7S84IzhgvCCTXHfVnk3SKtPKQ64ThvS3LySP36UDq8ttaWCwKa/u WbwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWTDzKgTDvXqI/HPwzANO11SET52PuAbIsr/q6eBuu97+QZwN5t M9MlOUdhTILUWiJSJZ9yvcJdRDRjP22ht+bfzdA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxFOxriGueyqjeMMOoDUGmhwUCsDbKcuPj4+XvFkQ+UYCZuke4fKoOwe7EROHF2o3WFMpRvlIy61ydiyT0UA9o=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7d0c:: with SMTP id y12mr15622493ljc.36.1564599227225; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmVnkMFEQv=Hr3y9OD09+_vocHRgnGQnLwEVO=yuTcptEQ@mail.gmail.com> <EAB5C70D-A160-423E-84FE-3CE7AC079168@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <EAB5C70D-A160-423E-84FE-3CE7AC079168@trammell.ch>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:53:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWxh+FRxnrFH9ZbQ_F0V42UTm8aE0yOpd2N7vXb-Eqaiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027a6a8058efea519"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/AvLeg9AGttb1yzSUIEK3UHpJbmA>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags Re: Regarding draft-mizrahi-ippm-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: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 18:53:53 -0000
Dear Authors, thank you for bringing this proposal for the discussion. When considering WG AP, I use the following criteria: - is the document reasonably well-written; - does it addresses a practical problem; - is the proposed solution viable? On the first point, I commend you - the draft is easy to read. On the second point, I have several questions: - What is the benefit of using Loopback flag in the Trace mode? - Why is it important to limit the applicability of Loopback to only Trace mode? - What is the benefit of collecting the same, as I understand the description, data on the return path to the source? - What is the benefit of using Active flag comparing to existing active OAM protocols? - What is the benefit of using Immediate flag comparing to Postcard-Based Telemetry <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-04> (PBT) proposal? On the third point, I'd appreciate your clarification on these points: - In which transports (I find that iOAM encapsulation has been proposed for all known transports) you've envisioned to use Loopback flag? - The third bullet in Section 5 refers to a replica of the data packet that follows the same path as the original packet. What controls that replication? - The last paragraph in the Security Consideration section relies on "restricted administrative domain" to mitigate the threat of malicious attacks using a combination of iOAM extensions. That might be the case when operating in a PNF environment, but it is much more challenging to maintain such a trusted domain in VNF environment. How can these new security risks be mitigated in a VNF environment? Appreciate your consideration and clarifications to my questions. Regards, Greg On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:07 PM Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote: > hi Greg, > > Thanks for the feedback; absolutely, we can do this the normal way. > Authors: let's do a normal two-week adoption call for this document before > publishing the update. > > This adoption call starts now. > > IPPM, please respond to this message with an indication to the mailing > list of your support for adopting draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags as a > working group document, in partial fulfillment of our charter milestone > "submit a Standards Track draft on inband OAM based measurement > methodologies to the IESG" (obviously, depending on how many documents we > end up sending to the IESG, we may have to change the plurality of this > milestone). If you do not support this, please send a message to the list > explaining why. > > Thanks, cheers, > > Brian (as IPPM co-chair) > > > > On 25 Jul 2019, at 13:15, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Chairs, et al., > > I appreciate that editors of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data followed on the > decision of the WG reached at the meeting in Prague to extract material not > directly related to the definition of iOAM data elements from the document. > The new draft was presented earlier this week and generated many comments. > I feel that it would be right to discuss the draft and its relevance to the > charter of the IPPM WG before starting WG adoption poll. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > >
- [ippm] Regarding draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags Greg Mirsky
- [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Jai Kumar
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Tommy Pauly
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Barak Gafni
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Jai Kumar
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… John Lemon
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Parviz Yegani
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Tom Herbert
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Tom Herbert
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Tom Herbert
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Mickey Spiegel
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Tom Herbert
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-i… Tommy Pauly