IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ippm] Progressing draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Fri, 10 December 2021 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 30B343A07D2 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:01:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bpkNViOVL0KB for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD2B43A07CD for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:01:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4J9MDW3NpMz4yjYV for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:58:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4J9MHc2Hmmz510Y0 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:00:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1BA70UqO080692 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:00:30 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:00:30 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:00:30 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa61b2fb0e648d8ce1
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202112101500302348450@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 1BA70UqO080692
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.138.novalocal with ID 61B2FA7B.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1639119483/4J9MDW3NpMz4yjYV/61B2FA7B.000/192.168.251.13/[192.168.251.13]/mxct.zte.com.cn/<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 61B2FA7B.000/4J9MDW3NpMz4yjYV
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/WeNZxRx1q21q1kHaqHB1tNrqIJI>
Subject: [ippm] Progressing draft-ietf-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, 10 Dec 2021 07:01:19 -0000

Hi IPPM WG,

The -02 version of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state has been posted.
There are mainly two changes, one is on IOAM Tracing Capabilities Objects to make them applicable to ICMPv6 extensions, another one is on IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object to make it aligned with the updated IOAM-Data document.
Also note that I've had an offline discussion with wg chairs and Frank Brockners, my conclusion is that Frank's concern raised at IETF 112 has been addressed. If that's not the case, please speak up.
With that said, I think this draft is ready for WGLC.

Best Regards,
Xiao Min

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email