Re: [ippm] Draft agenda for IETF 104

["Brian Trammell (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

hi Frank, all,

Apologies that I'm just now getting to this...

> On 18 Mar 2019, at 11:14, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Greg,
>  
> From what I understand, it is chair’s objective to address the question you raise below (i.e. what categories should IPPM WG consider for adoption?) as part of the planned WG discussion.

There's an action item still on the chairs' list post-Bangkok that we should follow up on this week -- figuring out one of the following three cases for each proposed encapsulation:

(1) Send the encapsulation draft to the relevant working group for the encapsulating protocol for adoption.

(2) Send the encapsulation draft to the a working group relevant to the area defining the encapsulating protocol, in case the encapsulating protocol does not have a most-relevant working group (RTGWG? INTAREA?)

(3) Adopt the encapsulating protocol in IPPM. For example, this is already clearly the correct thing to do for IPv6 encapsulation in an option, since 6man doesn't want to be in the business of defining options.

In cases 1 or 2, the document might come back to IPPM if the relevant WG is okay with it, but the discussion does need to have happened there first.

In cases where documents clearly require coordination with external standards organizations (Ethertype and Packet-Optical seem to be in this class), we need to liaise with the relevant organization before an adoption call can be made.

> In order to have a meaningful discussion – and given the fact that quite a few of the drafts are new/revised, it makes sense to get everyone on the same page, hence the superbrief lightening talks.

This seems reasonable, but during the meeting tomorrow morning, I'd like the discussion on encaps to focus on addressing the questions above. We need to be very clear on the answers before we can move to adopt any of them.

Cheers,

Brian (as co-chair IPPM)


>  
> Frank
>  
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Montag, 18. März 2019 10:42
> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]>; IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft agenda for IETF 104
>  
> Hi Frank,
> thank you for taking the proactive step to have a productive discussion in Prague. I think that we have a pretty good understanding of the iOAM related drafts presented to IPPM WG, some several times, before. Thus, I cannot see another 13+ minutes being spent on re-representing them as efficient use of everyone time. The scope of the draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data is declared as "the data fields and associated data types for in-situ OAM". Based on that, I suggest that authors of the iOAM encapsulations drafts, e.g., Ethernet, IPv6, Optical, etc., work with the Responsible AD to help them find WGs to work on their respective documents. The rest is what we could discuss. How many non-encapsulation iOAM drafts that will be?
>  
> Regards,
> Greg
>  
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:28 AM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi IPPM WG,
> 
>  
> 
> Tommy asked me to facilitate the IOAM discussion. Per Tommy’s note below, we want to discuss the entire set of IOAM related documents and decide on next steps.
> 
>  
> 
> Given that we have a pretty large set of IOAM related individual drafts (currently 13 drafts, if I counted things correctly), I suggest that we do a very brief lightening talk (< 1 min – hard policed) on each document and then have a discussion on which categories and documents IPPM WG should consider for adoption.  In order to ease the “lightening talk” section – I’ve created a template https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1P1Kp9mXA0eKkws78p1tldFn8zqx0YPQ5TK5fnq6Vyz4 - where each draft is listed with title and abstract. An author of each draft should present the key points of the drafts – as well as answer the question, whether IPPM should consider WG adoption.
> If you’re an author, please feel free to update the particular slide of your draft according to what you think is required.
> 
>  
> 
> Here’s a draft agenda for the 40min IOAM slot:
> 
>  
> 
> ·        IOAM data draft  / WG document (10min)
> ·        draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-05 – 10min
> ·        Review of individual IOAM drafts by category  (13min, 1min each max)
> ·        IOAM encapsulation (9min)
> ·        Draft-weis-ippm-ioam-eth-01 (new)
> ·        Draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options-01
> ·        Draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment-00 (new)
> ·        Draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-geneve-02 (new)
> ·        Draft-gafni-ippm-ioam-ipv4-options-00 (new)
> ·        Draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 (new)
> ·        Draft-anand-ippm-po-ioam-02 (new)
> ·        Draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mpls-00
> ·        Draft-ali-spring-ioam-srv6-00
> ·        IOAM data export (1min)
> ·        Draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-01
> ·        IOAM YANG models/operations (2 min)
> ·        Draft-zhou-ippm-ioam-yang-03 (new)
> ·        Draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-profile-00 (new)
> ·        IOAM tools (1min)
> ·        Draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state-03 (new)
> ·        Discussion and Hums (15min)
> ·        Which categories of IOAM documents make sense for IPPM to adopt?
> ·        WG adoption of certain drafts (for those categories and drafts which apply)?
>  
> 
> Did I miss any document that should be added to the list above? If so, please let us know – and add another slide to the google slide deck. 
> The deck should be editable by anyone.
>  
> Thanks, Frank
>  
> From: ippm <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tommy Pauly
> Sent: Mittwoch, 13. März 2019 01:24
> To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft agenda for IETF 104
>  
> To clarify, the time allocated for IOAM is not allocated just to discuss draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data. That currently is the one IOAM document that is a WG document, but there is a list of many other documents that have been submitted as "-ippm" individual drafts. We want to use this time to figure out collectively as a group how we want to approach this work going forward, and where the documents best belong. The goal of this discussion is to come out with a clear picture of what work we think makes sense for IPPM. This will hopefully be more fruitful than having many individual lightning talks for these topics.
>  
> Best,
> Tommy
>  
> 
> On Mar 12, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>  
> Hi Tommy,
> given how dense is our agenda for Prague, allotting 40 minutes for one draft seems as overgenerous. If there are updates to IOAM individual drafts, then should these be explicitly listed among other individual drafts that have allocated 5 minutes each?
>  
> Kind regards,
> Greg
>  
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello IPPM,
> 
> We've posted our draft agent for IETF 104 here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/agenda-104-ippm-00
> 
> We have a two-hour slot, and are pretty full! The chairs have discussed and would like to have two more extended discussions this time about:
> - Finalizing the metrics and initial registries, so we can get those out the door
> - How we should progress with IOAM and the large cluster of related documents. We'll ask that instead of having any lightning talks on related IOAM documents, we have a broader discussion about what we're doing for these.
> 
> After that, the agenda is made up of 5 minute lightning talks, with a group of related alt-mark documents at the start. Apologies that we can't have longer time for these!
> 
> Suggestions or bashing welcome!
> 
> Best,
> Tommy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>  
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm