Re: [ippm] Draft agenda for IETF 104

Hi Frank,
thank you for taking the proactive step to have a productive discussion in
Prague. I think that we have a pretty good understanding of the iOAM
related drafts presented to IPPM WG, some several times, before. Thus, I
cannot see another 13+ minutes being spent on re-representing them as
efficient use of everyone time. The scope of the draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data
is declared as "the data fields and associated data types for in-situ OAM".
Based on that, I suggest that authors of the iOAM encapsulations drafts,
e.g., Ethernet, IPv6, Optical, etc., work with the Responsible AD to help
them find WGs to work on their respective documents. The rest is what we
could discuss. How many non-encapsulation iOAM drafts that will be?

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:28 AM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <
fbrockne@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi IPPM WG,
>
>
>
> Tommy asked me to facilitate the IOAM discussion. Per Tommy’s note below,
> we want to discuss the entire set of IOAM related documents and decide on
> next steps.
>
>
>
> Given that we have a pretty large set of IOAM related individual drafts
> (currently 13 drafts, if I counted things correctly), I suggest that we do
> a very brief lightening talk (< 1 min – hard policed) on each document and
> then have a discussion on which categories and documents IPPM WG should
> consider for adoption.  In order to ease the “lightening talk” section –
> I’ve created a template
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1P1Kp9mXA0eKkws78p1tldFn8zqx0YPQ5TK5fnq6Vyz4
> - where each draft is listed with title and abstract. An author of each
> draft should present the key points of the drafts – as well as answer the
> question, whether IPPM should consider WG adoption.
> If you’re an author, please feel free to update the particular slide of
> your draft according to what you think is required.
>
>
>
> Here’s a draft agenda for the 40min IOAM slot:
>
>
>
> ·        IOAM data draft  / WG document (10min)
>
> ·        draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-05 – 10min
>
> ·        Review of individual IOAM drafts by category  (13min, 1min each
> max)
>
> ·        *IOAM encapsulation (9min)*
>
> ·        Draft-weis-ippm-ioam-eth-01 (new)
>
> ·        Draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options-01
>
> ·        Draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment-00 (new)
>
> ·        Draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-geneve-02 (new)
>
> ·        Draft-gafni-ippm-ioam-ipv4-options-00 (new)
>
> ·        Draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 (new)
>
> ·        Draft-anand-ippm-po-ioam-02 (new)
>
> ·        Draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mpls-00
>
> ·        Draft-ali-spring-ioam-srv6-00
>
> ·        *IOAM data export (1min)*
>
> ·        Draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-01
>
> ·        *IOAM YANG models/operations (2 min)*
>
> ·        Draft-zhou-ippm-ioam-yang-03 (new)
>
> ·        Draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-profile-00 (new)
>
> ·        IOAM tools (1min)
>
> ·        Draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state-03 (new)
>
> ·        Discussion and Hums (15min)
>
> ·        Which categories of IOAM documents make sense for IPPM to adopt?
>
> ·        WG adoption of certain drafts (for those categories and drafts
> which apply)?
>
>
>
> Did I miss any document that should be added to the list above? If so,
> please let us know – and add another slide to the google slide deck.
> The deck should be editable by anyone.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Frank
>
>
>
> *From:* ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Tommy Pauly
> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 13. März 2019 01:24
> *To:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] Draft agenda for IETF 104
>
>
>
> To clarify, the time allocated for IOAM is not allocated just to
> discuss draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data. That currently is the one IOAM document
> that is a WG document, but there is a list of many other documents that
> have been submitted as "-ippm" individual drafts. We want to use this time
> to figure out collectively as a group how we want to approach this work
> going forward, and where the documents best belong. The goal of this
> discussion is to come out with a clear picture of what work we think makes
> sense for IPPM. This will hopefully be more fruitful than having many
> individual lightning talks for these topics.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Tommy
>
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Tommy,
>
> given how dense is our agenda for Prague, allotting 40 minutes for one
> draft seems as overgenerous. If there are updates to IOAM individual
> drafts, then should these be explicitly listed among other individual
> drafts that have allocated 5 minutes each?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
> 40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hello IPPM,
>
> We've posted our draft agent for IETF 104 here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/agenda-104-ippm-00
>
> We have a two-hour slot, and are pretty full! The chairs have discussed
> and would like to have two more extended discussions this time about:
> - Finalizing the metrics and initial registries, so we can get those out
> the door
> - How we should progress with IOAM and the large cluster of related
> documents. We'll ask that instead of having any lightning talks on related
> IOAM documents, we have a broader discussion about what we're doing for
> these.
>
> After that, the agenda is made up of 5 minute lightning talks, with a
> group of related alt-mark documents at the start. Apologies that we can't
> have longer time for these!
>
> Suggestions or bashing welcome!
>
> Best,
> Tommy
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>