Re: [ippm] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with COMMENT)

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 23 May 2021 20:40 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161654925329.29254.3776182308241345045@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABUE3Xk9jizouSzSW7gqm3B4-hT0q8=9RMemohdVSZk2jPSzBw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABUE3Xk9jizouSzSW7gqm3B4-hT0q8=9RMemohdVSZk2jPSzBw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 13:39:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMGpriVe5MS8bgRk=mkcxobsQKt0gPmFO+YbP8hwM_Pn-pOiVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, Al Morton <acm@research.att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d8d27605c3054be8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/V45w748mE8xeb6k2kiz0AkvId-Q>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Thanks!

On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 11:34 PM Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Erik,
>
> Thanks for the comments.
> We are currently working on an  updated version of the draft.
> We propose the following changes based on your comments - please see
> inline.
> Please let us know if there are further comments.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 3:27 AM Erik Kline via Datatracker
> <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: No Objection
> >
> > 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [ section 5.4 ]
> >
> > * "deployed in a particular IOAM," -> "deployed in a particular
> IOAM-Domain,"
> >   perhaps
> >
>
> Suggested text update:
> OLD:
> Given that the operator knows which equipment is deployed in
> a particular IOAM
> NEW:
> Given that the operator knows which equipment is deployed in
> a particular IOAM domain
>
>
> > * I think perhaps it should be made clear, especially for the Incremental
> >   Trace Option, that dynamic insertion of data might need to be moderated
> >   "subject to any protocol constraints of the encapsulating layer", as it
> >   were.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Suggested text update:
> OLD:
> IOAM transit nodes push their node
> data to the node data list, decrease the remaining length
> available to subsequent nodes and adjust the lengths and possibly
> checksums in outer headers.
> NEW:
> IOAM transit nodes push their node
> data to the node data list subject to any protocol constraints of the
> encapsulating layer.
> They then decrease the remaining length
> available to subsequent nodes and adjust the lengths and possibly
> checksums in outer headers.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Tal.
>

[ippm] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-ip… Erik Kline via Datatracker
Re: [ippm] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-iet… Tal Mizrahi
Re: [ippm] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-iet… Erik Kline