Re: [ippm] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

Dear Murray,

Thanks for the review and comments.

We have uploaded an updated version that hopefully addresses the
DISCUSS comments.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export/

Please see my responses below, marked [TM].

Please let us know if there are further comments.
Cheers,
Tal.

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:11 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-09: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In Section 3.2, there's this field definition:
>
>    Reserved        This field SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.
>
> I'm worried about interoperability here.  "SHOULD" allows a choice.  As
> written, I would be within the protocol if I decided to interpret this field,
> even if the other participants put junk here.  Wouldn't it be better to say
> this is a "MUST", or require that it be all zero bits (at least in this
> version)?  If you really think this needs to be a "SHOULD", I suggest
> explaining the choice that's being made available to an implementer here.

[TM] Fixed to MUST.

>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you to the Working Group for tackling the issue of the author count.  I
> know those conversations can be quite un-fun.
>
> I concur with John that the references to RFCs 7014 and 5475 should be
> informative.

[TM] Fixed.

>
> Section 4.1 needs a bit of work.  It claims that Section 7.2 of RFC9197 created
> to the "IOAM Type Registry", but it's actually the "IOAM Trace-Type Registry",
> yet you appear to want to register stuff in the "IOAM Option-Type Registry"
> which would be Section 7.1 of RFC 9197.  Please clarify.  Also, both of those
> registries require that the "Reference" column be specified explicitly, even
> though it's fairly obvious what it's going to be.

[TM] Fixed.

>
>
>