Re: [ippm] Side Meeting: IOAM Immediate Export Draft

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

Dear Chairs,

Following up on the request below, we are looking forward to have an
infrastructure (mailing list, Webex, Github folder) that will allow us to
make progress.
I am hoping to have a preliminary draft of the immediate exporting ready
for the design team's review by the end of August.

Thanks,
Tal.

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 6:50 PM Barak Gafni <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Please find below side meeting notes: Friday 26th July 8:30 am Notredam
>
>
>
> Summary:
>
>    - Group suggestion: for 00 draft we should define the new IOAM option
>    and keep single flag which tells “immediate export”. Additional
>    capabilities will be discussed towards 01 and beyond
>    - The group is asking the chairs to approve the need for a public IETF
>    mailing list for a “design” team and a public webex to allow the group to
>    progress on a weekly or bi-weekly cadence
>
>
>
> More details:
>
>    - The option is added / removed by the encap/decap nodes, read by the
>    intermediate nodes
>
>
>    - Tianran presented option defined a modified form from
>    draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-04:
>
>
>
>        0             0 0             1 1             2 2             3
>
>        0             7 8             5 6             3 4             1
>
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>       |        Namespace ID           | Flags | action|  Hop Count    |
>
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>       |         IOAM-Trace-Type                       |  Reserved     |
>
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>       |                         Flow ID (optional)                    |
>
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>       |                     Sequence Number  (Optional)               |
>
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
>
> Below comments came from discussion of the above and the content of
> immediate export to answer:
>
>    1. What to export
>    2. Where to export
>    3. When to export
>
>
>
>    - Discussed potential fields in the option header, beyond 00 draft:
>       - Discussed the option to add “actions”, although may change the
>       name
>       - The original flags from the flags draft may be reconsidered
>          - Overflow may become redundant
>          - Active is still relevant
>          - Loopback should be considered
>          - Immediate export – whether it is implicit or should be explicit
>       - IOAM trace type should stay as is to help collector and trace
>       implementation to maintain consistent node data parsing.
>       - Consider whether to have the sequence number and flow id. The
>       interpretation is through the higher layer length. Will be included as
>       optional at the 00 draft
>          - Sequence number – suggestion is to use the e2e sequence number
>          - Anyway, agreement is that the sequence number and the flow id
>          go as a pair.
>       - Flags should reside in a similar place as at the ioam tracing
>       options
>    - Suggest to use the raw export draft to export the data
>       - Need to follow up on the raw export
>       - Need to clarify the behavior, so the node 0 will follow the
>       captured immediate export option
>    - Suggest not to add hop count at this stage, as it adds more
>    complexity to the processing, in addition for example to reducing TTL
>    - As for the suggestion on the “actions” presented in the meeting
>       - Two types – actions need to get executed by the node vs
>       conditions for any execution
>          - Conditions – there are too many, discussion inclined towards
>          not using specific condition. Going forward the group intend to consider
>          export on exception/alarm without defining what exception/alarm are
>          - Log – needs further discussion. We believe we shouldn’t define
>          what is the protocol and where should the logging reside. The indication to
>          export is what we are using. Need further discussion on export to some
>          preconfigured collector, export to the source of the packet or record the
>          data locally.
>       - Side note regarding rawexport – consider export reason – how and
>    if is it related to the IOAM protocol. Should consider remove it from
>    rawexport?
>    - Tal Mizrahi volunteered to write and publish the 00 draft in
>    collaboration with people who join the design team.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Barak
>
>
>
> *From:* ippm <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of * Tal Mizrahi
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2019 4:24 PM
> *To:* IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [ippm] Side Meeting: IOAM Immediate Export Draft
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Time: Friday, 8:30-9:45.
>
> Room: Coller
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/105sidemeetings
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fietf%2Fmeeting%2Fwiki%2F105sidemeetings&data=02%7C01%7Cgbarak%40mellanox.com%7C7b0e46c15e5f4cd01d5e08d71074e672%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636995966577906606&sdata=7Qgkw9dlo2wEANwsxk%2B4ndyu%2BYag3OUKRZa0yHm5shQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Details:
>
> We are going to hold a side meeting on Friday morning to discuss the
> outline of the new draft that will describe the immediate export IOAM
> option.
>
>
>
> The meeting is open to all, and specifically intended for authors and
> contributors of the related IOAM drafts.
>
>
>
> Minutes will be sent to the list after the meeting.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>