IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 13 November 2020 07:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
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 F16CF3A15F0; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 23:20:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uTrjSlUwH2tP; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 23:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE81E3A15ED; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 23:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id p7so8804455ioo.6; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 23:20:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kZCw1TO9ZnNOrcl4c5yT7FpUmD+FzBa9vZe0qVVZRGI=; b=BMU5B+VQWnGeXCjbVvqjsuIc43fN+Adgfsz07J410SLsFPuDG8bj+07So5LqxfVesn cg7mLzlwfIOYbMkSbK2AK8tOe69gD5h5uC6dN5UGe9f8MdEVHNLePMt6BB5U/Q2baToz k4oYOWmzr72w2Jqu/VJFCY72BXiKDAcb32fOKV/F9GwIms0Xsy4T0iMYc1nyvJv0Vy+r o0TQiI7S6F4eZITtRtTy+hXqutGIbhSLeIPuDwtEquR72qO92YYjrlKIboPganHG8EFC /6kWkrXZorPwVKCaM2j0e0UxoOCoNURuDBOXaBKwnl4aBtVo9DiOqnxQyCAwFXQclNqL qQ6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kZCw1TO9ZnNOrcl4c5yT7FpUmD+FzBa9vZe0qVVZRGI=; b=GDrhjKJDnvlTWY6rHUUDDqIWq1UabE5Jmu/t5iHyKkzKLbe/ib2QE1iJVanhmL9wVd oqzP0SMeu9istN+X9t0r8cvzOLNKJoS7iaMQDbtaYPwer8tYM7t5GQBlVevEHpcpxyYn yATv9iwbzfabZNegy3n2pX7wbUv6zdR05aa1SpXBHaPLGaHoR4jJye1WP47ic8N/U570 Uc1yT14qgLzQWDj2xbsyKsU+vuEFR48ToAequrIV/mu9dyRBvhMa5l3mq9ZuPRF+M15m s6qJzULA+OAf830eS4y9N1HJVl093md7u5ZBjsgRDN59MCbnHJJUSsdrBNQ0hRhm9CB7 V56w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531hKiMGV8yU1JVE6vcQ+pd57uwgWflfgIlkc+eFppQIa1vXrIaS F8wil/42SKi3o4bZFn56IpprABIXGEMGWF+VeJFhuAMcNDgdbw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy45n8ewt1c1MGMyOVHUx9c6Gq+WSXj2H5mlXQoEduulh9ldktsdiBZ+5rp1O/zk/3ehtKbKHeCzcAluihJtR0=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:9981:: with SMTP id a1mr909358jal.54.1605252029878; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 23:20:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5E408E0E-862E-480B-88FD-890098340EBC@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <5E408E0E-862E-480B-88FD-890098340EBC@apple.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 12:49:53 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn5xkhQWik_F9eM7jZ61-bB-U=YTi0Kc+_ssLJBGmy4eYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/WR4GNhPWH0EkplDRUJljnG9USAI>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:20:33 -0000

Hi WG,

I suggest adding some text to explain why you don't have an IANA
allocation when you are defining a new type and sub-types in this
document.  It took me a while to figure out that it might be
intentional.

Related question -
- Is it a good idea to use the same name 'IOAM Capabilities TLV' when
it has different formats in the echo request and echo reply message?
- What about an IANA registry for TSF and TSL field in IOAM
Edge-to-Edge Capabilities, some codepoints are reserved for future
standardization but no registry.

Other than that, I support adoption :)

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 12:16 AM Tommy Pauly
<tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hello IPPM,
>
> This email starts a Working Group call for adoption for draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state. This document has been presented several times and discussed within the working group in the context of our overall IOAM work.
>
> The document can be found here:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07
>
> Please provide your feedback on these document, and state whether or not you believe the IPPM WG should adopt this work by replying to this email. Please provide your feedback by the start of the IETF 109 meeting week, on Monday, November 16.
>
> Best,
> Tommy & Ian
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email