From nobody Tue Jun 28 19:16:23 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BABC15AE34; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:16:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.104 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.104 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R_KsttUR-4do; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5389C15AAE1; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id by38so17074431ljb.10; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:16:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=phv4OvayZcVHOQzLeqxTNMXhSXzf3nmJeQIzRGnrONc=; b=B/WPs3AFYGNo02yXbrhIo0da+SzsPCdCYUGyBOyPwkNd+QG8XL7KI9NJ0QvJfnfeHq +lGaozQ3qw61EF6dNdPK6fb09uTWGXRuQLwGCq3LHjBE+yNjB5m1A8HU9+3RslCR/D4k Rl8O6RpuD1xz8Zpt/sBKUDSYymvRetN8q7y+wsaZNTwYRKOUVAlSTLTkxt07n7yWIFLC g13kpUlry7dtdDkJHUMPbHa3OKbeDFnaCn3/zltWY9x5DQ3CoFAGl9tOEG0brg4Eh353 6XJ6wWLLw98SUJbMPZzJ2a/k5u0EhbGAeldCMS6e/WrLdeOZpnz3+NjEIpzL0y0v1aoP kV8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=phv4OvayZcVHOQzLeqxTNMXhSXzf3nmJeQIzRGnrONc=; b=wjLSP7/uwzcxRYWX26Pair1p+VUOYcM+uZ7ExjQU6emTfQBmuEg8XvvwrSAJcGQOSy UnzMA+Gc+Fc/y2j7GKTM8k/fP6tfRJaj439G09qFBsvEmChGWko268wCwJIM+DM4ONR5 s/JL9JHElKMe/xcvLHrSQfQYYm5dQeL1gm6nWTHsd/ykvpGuNSwJO85GVTLR75QCJO03 uWqIfGMGCb00JeWCvOegbu7o+FvF+jCb5aRrigJo5WdbUrZ7tFWtRKJg3gaOxNM2a1+n 9juPrhUH/xhOnFZopxl0i0nToT0Z30vlIOfyJIi0OuuSaOuU8+MQI2GPKEtlpmTAIHLP z9Xg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8wcCFuUVPKU7bLF62B+oeCyzZeRkqdHxvkyW8L8dnCuK/mF1tQ YA6cCEjySOlQIhHOxcXFUtDbfuqIj4cN8jsXnodQ3aGqdAI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1t74TFlGzElUFXAS1nW0OX2qKOOnxk8WAZ6rjURZ46GrYi1L1nckCFCRGPGmjOUbanqSKZ9lXAKuxccGNL1E+Y= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:991:b0:25b:caa0:6766 with SMTP id b17-20020a05651c099100b0025bcaa06766mr447441ljq.113.1656468969445; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:16:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:15:58 -0700 Message-ID: To: Susan Hares , idr wg Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000815c9305e28cbcbc" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org 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: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 02:16:20 -0000 --000000000000815c9305e28cbcbc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 . 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 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 =E2=80=93 The IDR WG is planning = WG LC on > this draft in August. > > 2. draft-wang-idr-ifit-capabilities-05.tt =E2=80=93 The IDR WG has consen= sus 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 > --000000000000815c9305e28cbcbc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Susan,
thank you for bringing thes= e drafts to my attention. As I understand the scope of IFIT, it combines va= rious on-path telemetry mechanisms, including IOAM and Alternate Marking. B= oth IOAM and Alternate Marking are intended for deployment=C2=A0in limited = domains (per the definition of a limited domain in RFC 8799. And an example of a limited= domain is an enterprise network, a home network. Given that IOAM and Alter= nate marking to be deployed in a limited domain, what could be a use case f= or the extension of BGP in support of the IFIT?

Re= gards,
Greg

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

Marcus, Tommy and ippm WG:

=C2=A0

The IDR WG would like your feedback on two drafts in= IDR:

=C2=A0

1. draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-03.txt =E2=80=93 Th= e IDR WG is planning WG LC on this draft in August.

2. draft-wang-idr-ifit-capabilities-05.tt =E2= =80=93 The IDR WG has consensus on adopting this draft.

=C2=A0

Please let us know if you have any concerns regardin= g these drafts.

=C2=A0

We note that these drafts reference: <= /p>

=C2=A0

1) draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark

2) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data

3) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export<= /p>

4) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags

5) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options <= /p>

=C2=A0

Please let me know if you have any questions regardi= ng these two drafts.

=C2=A0

I am one of the IDR WG co-chairs and the shepherd fo= r these two drafts.

=C2=A0

You can reply to this thread or provide information = to your WG chairs.

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0

Cheers, Susan Hares

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
--000000000000815c9305e28cbcbc--