Re: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data and a new draft for IOAM flags

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Tommy, for a quick response!

This makes good sense to allow demarcation of discussion. The risk is that the isolation of conversation dissociates the tech, and in a while we find the documents had become desynchronized and with a larger gap.

I like this approach, and look forward to discussing at IETF105 (in Montreal or remotely); my only request is that we do not let ippm-ioam-flags decelerate falling behind.

Thanks!

Carlos.


On Jul 10, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for the question! One of the reasons we asked for documents to be split was to be able to isolate the conversations a bit more, and keep the scope of the already-adopted document to what the working group felt confident about.

With that in mind, the draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags should not be considered to be automatically adopted. Specifically, we do want to be able to have a discussion as a working group.

I really appreciate that these documents were split, and we’ll definitely make sure to spend time in Montreal to discuss next steps.

Thanks,
Tommy

On Jul 10, 2019, at 5:13 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi、　IPPM　Chairs,

One process question: draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags-00 is effectively a spin-off of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-05, splitting text from it into a new document, and adding WG discussion related to draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data. In that case, and since draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data is an adopted WG document, should draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags be effectively automatically adopted as a WG Doc?

Asking as that is my experience, when splitting a WG document into two.

Thanks!

Carlos.


On Jul 4, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Back in the IPPM WG meeting in Prague, Tommy concluded on the discussion of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-05, that we should “separate the flag discussion into separate drafts and  then fold it into the data draft based on WG consensus.” (see IPPM minutes
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/minutes-104-ippm-00). Unfortunately it took a bit longer than expected but today two new documents were published following Tommy’s conclusion:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags-00
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06

draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags-00 is a new document which provides the description of those flags that describe IOAM behavior not immediately associated to updating the IOAM data fields, i.e. the new draft took the text related to flags from the draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data. draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 is the associated update to the -05 version with the description of the flags removed.

With the -00 draft cut off still a few days away, it would be great to get comments on the split and even more so on the new ioam-flags draft, so that we could create a rev before the cut off (if required) and then try to close the discussion in Montreal.

Thanks much, Frank
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm