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

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*