Re: [ippm] Vote at IPPM session

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Frank, all,

Thanks for proposing some text.

> How about: "The operator of such a domain MUST put provisions in place to
> ensure that in-situ OAM data stays within the specific domain only (i.e., does
not
> leak beyond the edge) using for example packet filtering methods. The operator
> SHOULD consider potential operational impact of IOAM to mechanisms such as
> ECMP processing (e.g. load-balancing schemes based on packet length could be
> impacted by the increased packet size due to IOAM), path MTU (i.e. ensure that
> the MTU of all links within a domain is sufficiently large to support the
increased
> packet size due to IOAM) and ICMP message handling (i.e. in case of a native
IPv6
> transport, IOAM support for ICMPv6 Echo Request/Reply could desired which
> would translate into ICMPv6 extensions to enable IOAM data fields to be copied
> from an Echo Request message to an Echo Reply message)."

Like Sarah, I think this is a start.

I remain disappointed that it is the operators' responsibility to ensure various
things, and not a feature of the protocol or implementation.

But perhaps this text serves as a warning to the operators about using
implementations of iOAM and so will suffice.

I think the use of 2119 capitalisation is meaningless in this paragraph, and
that the "SHOULD" in the second sentence should in any case be a "must".

Thanks,
Adrian