Re: [ippm] Re-call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sun, 04 July 2021 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 D6A283A28CE for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 16:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 ZPen8Oy7By4s for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 16:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (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 68D6B3A28C6 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 16:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id v13so9268847ple.9 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 04 Jul 2021 16:22:00 -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=4rVvURJ7DgC4lNyWy4hspj+mejjVx19UedwejM/AUEw=; b=JqfqsrTO1YBRNotwgVwU0FmT1qNLzdu3c0T9ZxFwgW04HNLv59Tm1y3WHI6bMjQhhE koTTwmsV7VHZcRZJ8PiWOkhbNgVJQhIoxKYCWK181aPTeYUX5SNczUwQ0TcfYVOsU7sO VQ+4jcSoqb837kvU0Xll/9eX8Gv3YctmwBRbnM9Iw7623vJF2KeYbv8BO67hcUQh08/o 2og5vA1vR3zsXn05gDkZq3hKQe1u0JB12OmSkOy7UQNPcPOvlhORGyMzFbtzzVnXbRyY h16WPrLq9fdO/I80u/xpmuGWG6oLdlGov9nlHJ4+Bkuh4ISfXPtQB9OnAErOwqmYGAsV Q00g==
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=4rVvURJ7DgC4lNyWy4hspj+mejjVx19UedwejM/AUEw=; b=Ui8z6W34CTV+DfAvMvRmrF/OXXFItbXvlQaiM3QV9ggsk7U5hya963PWiz6vvGOCKs sRWhEwIj0qkws1QDl/pdCgHZ8Y6vzO+Agn1/YWMaoVO8L4wmHKuCWNc10wRh3bR3fN/G TB48ar7IWWCgEMtOcHzca68VGlNqzt3+dsq6iAwECyAaP4aTF5Q2iLzWX4RqdLaOjs2E QGmJS8CgH71doLT86TTbT9yPW9tPVXj5NvAt6JIH6M78xzQDvc96ILm3P5/Fm3Xnn/FW j95pau4ykM8LdtIIT0WJ1F48SyYFo1cHd1DKZ4t0Jod/F7ZT9M3hqVJuD/U7KbG7K6WH 69mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533CbPvcfngAPexlncSz4nxIhUyGYf1MQd0aUr4XUs51EUig8pYK 1lE29bNfKLCFfGfne8f1IrkBT0Ur2MiGycNlS5o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzFFic5VUujgFSPdZZZd5VaYgERyNf+WZtzzhfpXGKzvN0cAsRF9+RiqvilRdlpDf6V7ajPkLtRjPux7awKMic=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:4592:: with SMTP id v18mr11779152pjg.132.1625440918886; Sun, 04 Jul 2021 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABNhwV2nV9J4dfcNhcLpQK9GGDzMy5y7iwiAMFqQN-1qiJxDjQ@mail.gmail.com> <202107041133216926247@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202107041133216926247@zte.com.cn>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2021 19:21:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1uQA6Je2MCUht2311rDuvq41wPrmOFTVeLvK5NehSGyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
Cc: ippm@ietf.org, tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000092dac405c65474f0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/HqxxVghdKcu8QJCe4ZiSy8y7VVg>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Re-call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state
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: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 23:22:06 -0000

Hi Greg

Most Welcome.

Anything I can do to help advancement and improvement of the draft as this
draft is important for operators.

Responses in-line

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 11:33 PM <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
> many thanks for your comments and suggestions; all are much appreciated.
> Please find our answers and notes in-lined below under the GIM>> tag.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Mirsky
> Sr. Standardization Expert
> 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部  Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D
> Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
> E: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
> www.zte.com.cn
> ------------------Original Mail------------------
> Sender: GyanMishra
> To: gregory mirsky10211915;
> CC: ippm@ietf.org;tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org;
> Date: 2021/07/02 09:30
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Re-call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state
>
> Dear Authors
>
> Few questions.
>
> The solution appear to be data plane agnostic and can apply to any data
> plane.  Correct?
> GIM>> Yes. The scope of this draft is to define constract that can be
> re-used in echo request/reply mechanisms, e.g., ICMP, LSP ping.
>
> I would add SR to list of data planes or just say that the solution is
> data plane agnostic applies to all data planes.
> GIM>> Thank you for the suggestion. Will add in the next version.


 Gyan> Ack

>
>
> Also the recommended feasible method of deployment is to use PCE or PCE
> CC  SDN centralized controller.
>
> In the introduction towards the bottom below is stated.
>
> “ The IOAM encapsulating node can acquire these IOAM capabilities info
> from the centralized controller, through, e.g., NETCONF/YANG, PCEP, or BGP.”
> As for centralized controller do you mean to say PCE or PCE CC-CCI object
> PCE/SDN centralized controller.
> GIM>> PCE or PCE CC-CCI object PCE/SDN controller is one of possible
> realizations of a centralized controller. in your opinion, would referring
> to it as an example be helpful?


Gyan> Yes I agree that would be helpful.  Maybe in the section where you
add the example you can add corresponding verbiage as to the reasons for
recommendation of use of centralized controller.

>
> You may want to state that the centralized controller option is the
> recommended method and reasons why.
> GIM>> We'll work on a new text for the next version of the draft.


    Gyan> Ack

>
> For IGP scenario would you need an IGP extension - much more complicated,
> or I guess you could use ISIS instance or OSPF transport mode to carry the
> metadata.  I think it maybe better to drop the IGP scenario.
> GIM>> I agree, the optional use of IGP may bring challenges without
> sufficient benefits. We'll investigate it further and share our thoughts in
> short time.


   Gyan> Ack.  I can investigate as well  with experts on LSR as to using
special non routing ‘transport style’ instance that we have available today
for metadata if possible to carry the IOAM data capability signaling.

>
>
> Kind Regards
> Gyan
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 11:59 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Authors
>
> I support WG adoption.
>
> This is a valuable telemetry tool in the operators toolbox for in-situ
> IOAM transit nodes data container  encap / decap within IOAM domain, with
> this extension to existing OAM echo-request/reply used in IPv6, MPLS, SFC,
> BIER, SR.
>
> Highly valuable to operators.
>
> Gyan
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:30 PM <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com> wrote:
> Hi Tommy and Ian,
> I support the adoption of this draft (as co-author).
>
> Regards,
> Greg Mirsky
> Sr. Standardization Expert
> 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部  Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D
> Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
> E: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
> www.zte.com.cn
> Original Mail
> Sender: TommyPauly
> To: IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org);
> Date: 2021/07/01 09:48
> Subject: [ippm] Re-call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
> Hello IPPM,
> Back in November, we had a call for adoption for
> draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state that led to several questions, and we asked
> for revised drafts.
>
> We’ve gotten several new versions, so Ian and I would like to re-start the
> adoption call to get people’s input on the current version.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10
>
> Please review the document and reply to the list to indicate if you
> support adopting this work by Thursday, July 15.
>
> Best,
> Tommy & Ian
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> --
>
> Gyan Mishra
> Network Solutions Architect
> Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
> M 301 502-1347
> --
>
> Gyan Mishra
> Network Solutions Architect
> Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
> M 301 502-1347

-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*