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

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Tue, 17 November 2020 08:19 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 324B43A03F5; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:19:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 J7BxeFFZ0ms2; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 952DF3A074E; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:19:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 71F17442D07A63DA4BEC; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:19:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 0AH8JUE8045260; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:19:30 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:19:30 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:19:30 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc5fb3879247034f6d
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202011171619301694551@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn5xkhQWik_F9eM7jZ61-bB-U=YTi0Kc+_ssLJBGmy4eYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 5E408E0E-862E-480B-88FD-890098340EBC@apple.com, CAB75xn5xkhQWik_F9eM7jZ61-bB-U=YTi0Kc+_ssLJBGmy4eYw@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
To: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 0AH8JUE8045260
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/fjMkKnfertnFPLHrd3_8FFC2wnY>
Subject: Re: [ippm] =?utf-8?q?Call_for_adoption=3A_draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-?= =?utf-8?q?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: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 08:19:38 -0000

Hello Dhruv,






Thanks for your support and good comments.


Please see inline my response tagged with <XM>.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min









原始邮件



发件人:DhruvDhody
收件人:Tommy Pauly;
抄送人:IPPM Chairs;IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org);
日 期 :2020年11月13日 15:20
主 题 :Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state




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.

<XM> Yes, it's intentional. Will add some text to explain the reason as you suggested.


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?

<XM> I lean to change the name to "IOAM Capabilities Query TLV" in the echo request, and change the name to "IOAM Capabilities Response TLV" in the echo reply. Will talk with the co-authors to find good names.




- 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.

<XM> I lean to accept this good suggestion. Will talk with the co-authors to figure out the potential new IANA 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

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm