Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options

> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11:55 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Authors, et al.,
> I have a number of questions on this draft and hope you'll find time to clarify some aspects of iOAM encapsulation in IPv6 EHs:
> format of both Hop-by-Hop Options header and Destination Options header, as defined in RFC 8200, allow the length of Options field in the header to be no more than 2K - 2 octets. I consider that to be an important limitation of the proposed encapsulation method but I don't find that being discussed in the document.
> Section 3 of your draft defines iOAM Option encapsulation format. How this encapsulation relates to the encapsulation of IPv6 options for the Hop-by-Hop Options header and Destination Options header?
> Section 4.2 in RFC 8200 defines four types of actions to be associated with the option. Which of these and in what scenarios may be used to carry iOAM information in IPv6 packet?
> Also, in Section 4.2 defined on-bit long flag in the Option Type field to indicate whether option data may change en route. How this flag will be used when iOAM option data encapsulated in IPv6 EHs?
> Further, the question of choosing a padding option - Pad1 or PadN? Which these two to be used for iOAM data in IPv6 EHs?
> With this number of technical issues being underspecified, I don't support the adoption of the draft by IPPM WG. And I feel that it would be more appropriate to ask 6man WG to host this work.

We did ask 6man to host this work, but the advise from the group and the 6man chairs was that they wanted the work done in IPPM, with review by 6man.

I do think these review points you bring up are good to clarify and address in the document, and we will make sure that such clarification is made as a working group doc.

Thanks,
Tommy
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:11 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
> Hello IPPM,
> 
> This email starts a working group adoption call for draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options. This document defines the IPv6 option encapsulation for IOAM data. This document was discussed with the 6man WG, which advised that the work be done in ippm, with review by 6man.
> 
> The documents are available here:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options/>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options-02 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options-02>
> 
> Please reply to this email by Wednesday, September 25, with your input on whether or not the WG should adopt this document.
> 
> Best,
> Tommy (as IPPM co-chair)
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------