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

Tal Mizrahi <> Thu, 18 August 2022 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CE2C15271F; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 05:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zXdsOdq5soZV; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 05:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C009C14CE43; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 05:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d10so1423294plr.6; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 05:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=7KQqj1ItYOzkIuno4mp3ZvFOKaLoimCzCiDDFlM4taA=; b=V+jF9RRcmErTR82IJqZkU6IHud0kBQdKi5VShY94vYGoJD0XVt/x0tg3q3qG6gQpIV 2EyQhI9oCUzt2YITyBP3lLqkJzrwe5bf5OqZdRxKp1c5NP6JyhkhHt28iv3sosB3EJpI X/8KhsDdwR5/L+lO0734YIf+xnVKquxZPsr6zCfzb3iITf+fuohEr/8TgT9+rX4g27+d 0CSTRnp+lisL4ykjlS+JWjCV/7gw/+YVdQA+LRruXivxjzjWgDc+4HO7O0hnwUk7VWI2 91fHH9VBR+cGpGXiJjazUlpygUJfZAcBH6eXtPVTSlfJmk6AmH0U3Lh7euQDEZagXFOD txOQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=7KQqj1ItYOzkIuno4mp3ZvFOKaLoimCzCiDDFlM4taA=; b=mx4EXN5PK7xDOHIBI+gFcS5QHOm/qKExLlzT/eTTvtCsdKt/3VTNq6pAS/hgwrYitE c5lDt0dXXwWPVc0ikTMg5eKycFnN0mSOMUaJf9LKv9qtC2pC2ITF3/EmOOnR4aDGtpII 5O8gglTnT8lomJ0v6CYZtUVHN52XxSTcdR0v+Y+RuZ9zSq7dCZrgcDfRl9n6g7UCxlhy Rp47Y1TMH1Kc1P6yaUBa58MySUw9baGaYlYzEawMC89qEk9FAaQFE5OPcEoo1Ku5k4h4 ewzJQ/VyYoKfNNLFmHthHcGVQjR6PmKt+qIomV0iK24lJCXx6628b53ff5uq/DgQGdob Sw2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3rPYTPp+d33+y5KkdKRVMxFjjBcGG3w3FXPO8WLJStwCdmBR7v QKvKriC9stH5vknBOZHtPBK4bMsnyoLPNz+7OhI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6uOfq/h6pS3OK9QJzrqfql9Kt3VzzHDDqJ6+NSiiNO5EhNEj77tnKxk9PVGw+yj/0JdMdOqVf8d/AURf95eRQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:55:b0:1f7:4513:8cac with SMTP id 21-20020a17090a005500b001f745138cacmr2920440pjb.93.1660827214753; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 05:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tal Mizrahi <>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:53:20 +0300
Message-ID: <>
To: Murray Kucherawy <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:53:39 -0000

Dear Murray,

Thanks for the review and comments.

We have uploaded an updated version that hopefully addresses the
DISCUSS comments.

Please see my responses below, marked [TM].

Please let us know if there are further comments.

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:11 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
<> 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
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.