Re: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt

Hi Susan,
thank you for bringing these drafts to my attention. As I understand the
scope of IFIT, it combines various on-path telemetry mechanisms, including
IOAM and Alternate Marking. Both IOAM and Alternate Marking are intended
for deployment in limited domains (per the definition of a limited domain
in RFC 8799 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8799>. And an example
of a limited domain is an enterprise network, a home network. Given that
IOAM and Alternate marking to be deployed in a limited domain, what could
be a use case for the extension of BGP in support of the IFIT?

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 8:29 AM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

> Marcus, Tommy and ippm WG:
>
>
>
> The IDR WG would like your feedback on two drafts in IDR:
>
>
>
> 1. draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-03.txt – The IDR WG is planning WG LC on
> this draft in August.
>
> 2. draft-wang-idr-ifit-capabilities-05.tt – The IDR WG has consensus on
> adopting this draft.
>
>
>
> Please let us know if you have any concerns regarding these drafts.
>
>
>
> We note that these drafts reference:
>
>
>
> 1) draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
>
> 2) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data
>
> 3) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export
>
> 4) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags
>
> 5) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these two drafts.
>
>
>
> I am one of the IDR WG co-chairs and the shepherd for these two drafts.
>
>
>
> You can reply to this thread or provide information to your WG chairs.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Susan Hares
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

Re: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022)