[ippm] In-situ OAM Data Type Extension

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Wed, 25 September 2019 06:36 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7139E1200FB for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 23:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U8jHOSt8fK1C for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 23:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (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 D9358120041 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 23:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 6359F6A7794C0E8D260E for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 07:36:32 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 07:36:31 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:36:28 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
CC: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: In-situ OAM Data Type Extension
Thread-Index: AdVzZ7Gfd6262M0xTaqtGX5AFwofPA==
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 06:36:27 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEFDFEDC@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/n3Ehu5TkcqSrSzV0K8rKi_dJBdk>
Subject: [ippm] In-situ OAM Data Type Extension
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: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 06:36:36 -0000

Hi Frank,

I am revisiting the mailing list. And I am interesting about Tom's discussion on IOAM Data Type Extension.

You had the following reply:
"* 24 bits Trace type 
Per your suggestion, reserving a bit to allow for future scalability makes sense - and bit 23 would be an obvious choice; which would in turn mean that we'd need to assign a different bit for checksum complement. If everyone else is fine with this change, we can include this change in -07."

We also had a draft to address the same issue.

I see the latest draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-07 reserved the bit 23. Are you going to define the usage of that bit or not?
Defer it to other draft or next version?