Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

No, please.
That draft proposes recoding the information from SFC's NSH into some 
other format.  This removes the entire interoperability premise of teh 
NSH work.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/11/2019 9:14 PM, Lizhenbin wrote:
> Agree very much. We also proposed the challenges and the optimization 
> considering when IOAM and SRH are used together in the following draft.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-6man-ipv6-sfc-ifit/
> 
> That is the reason why we do not think the solution proposed by 
> draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options is reasonable.
> 
> In order for better understanding and discussion, 6MAN WG is copied.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Zhenbin (Robin)
> 
> *From:*ippm [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Anoop Ghanwani
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:31 AM
> *To:* Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; IETF IPPM WG 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] Adoption call for 
> draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options
> 
> How would the headers look when IOAM is used in conjunction with IPv6 
> segment routing?  Does the IOAM header and metadata precede or 
> follow the segment routing header?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Anoop
> 
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:11 AM Tommy Pauly 
> <tpauly=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
> wrote:
> 
>     Hello IPPM,
> 
>     This email starts a working group adoption call for
>     draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options. This document defines
>     the IPv6 option encapsulation for IOAM data. This document was
>     discussed with the 6man WG, which advised that the work be done in
>     ippm, with review by 6man.
> 
>     The documents are available here:
> 
>     https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options/>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options-02
> 
>     Please reply to this email by Wednesday, September 25, with your
>     input on whether or not the WG should adopt this document.
> 
>     Best,
>     Tommy (as IPPM co-chair)
>     _______________________________________________
>     ippm mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>