Re: [ippm] Questions about draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state

To be clear regarding IPv4, the guidance in previous meetings has been that a standard IPv4 extension is almost certainly not something that would progress as a standard. I would suggest not basing work on the presence of such an IPv4 extension.

Best,
Tommy

> On May 27, 2020, at 2:21 AM, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn wrote:
> 
> Hi Yali,
> 
> 
> 
> This draft is a supportive document to IOAM encapsulations, so I believe it's too early to consider concrete ICMPv4 extensions, before there is rough consensus on IOAM over IPv4 encapsulation.
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Xiao Min
> 
> 原始邮件
> 发件人：wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com <mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>>
> 收件人：肖敏10093570;
> 抄送人：ippm@ietf.org <mailto:ippm@ietf.org> <ippm@ietf.org <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>;
> 日 期 ：2020年05月27日 10:11
> 主 题 ：RE: Re:[ippm] Questions about draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state
> Hi Min,
>  
> Thanks for your reply. Please see inline [Yali].
>  
> Best regards,
> Yali
>  
> From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn [mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:58 PM
> To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
> Cc: ippm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re:[ippm] Questions about draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state
>  
> Hi Yali,
> 
>  
> 
> Many thanks for your review and questions.
> 
> Please see my inline reply with <XM>.
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Xiao Min
> 
> 原始邮件
> 发件人：wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com <mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>>
> 收件人：ippm@ietf.org <mailto:ippm@ietf.org> <ippm@ietf.org <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>;
> 日期：2020年05月24日 19:50
> 主题：[ippm] Questions about draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>
> Hi authors,
>  
> This is Yali. This is an interesting work. I have following two questions.
>  
> First, is the list of Namespace-IDs the subset or all of Namespaces which the IOAM encapsulating node belongs to? If it is, I suggest adding some words to illustrate this.
> <XM>  Yes, you're correct. I'll make it more clear in the next revision.
>  [Yali] OK. Thanks.
> Second, could this extension to the echo request/reply mechanisms also be used in ICMP defined for IPv4?
> <XM>  In theory the mechanism described in this draft can also apply to ICMPv4, whereas I believe ICMPv4 needs to be taken into account only after the IOAM over IPv4 is defined. Currently the IOAM over IPv6 has been adopted in IPPM WG as draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options, if you're interested, we can work together on ICMPv6 first.
>  [Yali] IOAM over IPv6 is important. While considering a scenario that IOAM applied in the legacy IPv4 network, I think the problem of echo request/reply IOAM node capabilities also needs to be taken account. But it may be discussed in another draft later.
> In my opinion, as the Information Request and Reply Type=15 and Type=16 have been obsolete [RFC6918], so it could be used as the IOAM Capability echo request/reply messages to acquire the enabled IOAM capabilities.
>  [Yali] Do you think this is a way to request/reply IOAM capabilities?
> Thanks,
> Yali
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm