Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-zhou-ippm-ioam-yang

["Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tianran,

Thanks for your response. For operational data, this question should be answered by IOAM experts.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: ippm <[e-mail]> on behalf of Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2020 at 9:25 PM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman=[e-mail]>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]>, "IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail])" <[e-mail]>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-zhou-ippm-ioam-yang

Hi Reshad,

Thank you very much for your support and valuable comments.
Please see in line with my reply.

Cheers,
Tianran
From: ippm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 3:18 AM
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]>; IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-zhou-ippm-ioam-yang

Hi,

I support adoption of this document by the IPPM WG.

Some comments/questions below, apologies if there’s any dead horses In there (I haven’t followed discussions on this document recently).

  1.  There are no config false nodes, is this on purpose? I believe operational data would be of use.
ZTR> We have no purpose to eliminate the operational data. We just expressed the data we have considered. We welcome proposals on the operational data.


  1.  Some groupings are used only once, e.g. ioam-admin-config, ioam-filter. Don’t see the need for these groupings.
ZTR> We sometimes used group just as a data structure to “group”. So that the container will not be too big.  Do you think this is reasonable or not?


  1.  How is flow-id defined? Since it’s just a uint32 in the YANG, maybe add some text or reference if applicable?
ZTR> flow-id follows the definition in IOAM-DEX draft, with the same data type. I can add some text on this.


  1.  Use unit statements where applicable, e.g. max-length
ZTR> OK. I will improve this.


  1.  References would make it easier for readers/reviewers, espcially those who are not IOAM experts. e.g. for action-encapsulate or action-transit mean
ZTR> OK. I will improve this.


  1.  Examples would be of great help to understand how the YANG moduel is to be used
ZTR> OK. I will add some examples in the appendix.


  1.  Why is proof-of-transit  YANG defined in SFC? I understand how SFC makes use of POT, but couldn’t we use POT without SFC? It seems odd that a YANG module for a “protocol” would depend on an application making use of that “protocol”.
ZTR>  I raised this discussion on the presentation and emails. I am open on this. Maybe because POT model is already there adopted in SFC. A reference is easier. I think Frank is better to reply on this.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: ippm <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]<mailto:tpauly=[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, October 30, 2020 at 2:41 PM
To: "IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-zhou-ippm-ioam-yang

Hello IPPM,

This email starts a Working Group call for adoption for draft-zhou-ippm-ioam-yang. Now that our IOAM documents are mature and progressing, the chairs believe it is time to consider the YANG work officially.

The document can be found here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-ippm-ioam-yang-08

Please provide your feedback on these document, and state whether or not you believe the IPPM WG should adopt this work by replying to this email. Please provide your feedback by the start of the IETF 109 meeting week, on Monday, November 16.

Best,
Tommy & Ian