Re: [ippm] Merging deployment considerations into IPv6 IOAM document

["Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tommy,

Thanks much. The too long author list is a common – and not easily addressable issue as we all know.

Cheers, Frank

From: Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>
Sent: Montag, 12. Oktober 2020 18:17
To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]>; Martin Duke <[e-mail]>; IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Merging deployment considerations into IPv6 IOAM document

Hi Frank,

I’ve provided some editorial suggestions here:

https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/pull/198

Also, we should clean up the long author list on this document:

https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/issues/197

Best,
Tommy


On Sep 29, 2020, at 11:24 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Tommy,

Thanks for your feedback. Here's the git link:
https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/blob/master/drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options.xml
Text version is here: https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/blob/master/drafts/versions/03/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-03.txt

Looking forward to your comments.

Thanks, Frank


-----Original Message-----
From: Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Dienstag, 29. September 2020 20:19
To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Martin
Duke <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: Merging deployment considerations into IPv6 IOAM document

Hi Frank, all,

Thanks for providing this update. The combined document makes sense and, I
believe, will provide a more useful resource to implementors.

Looking through the new text, I had a few textual/editorial nits. Is this available
on a GitHub for comments or a PR?

Thanks,
Tommy


On Sep 18, 2020, at 1:56 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Hi Tommy, IPPM WG,

we just posted an updated draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-03 which merges
draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment into draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
ipv6-options plus it reflects the WG discussion of the last IPPM meeting.


The updates to draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-03 are

* implement the guidance from the WG chairs: Merge in draft-ioametal-ippm-
6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment "as is", i.e. only editorial changes were made (e.g.
resolve references which would have been circular).

* implement the result of discussion in the last WG meeting: Removed the
paragraph that started with " In order for IOAM to work in IPv6 networks.."
which included deployment considerations.


Moving forward, we'll need to further evolve the deployment section (now
section 4).

There were already comments raised in the IOAM DT wrt/ what is now section
4.4.1 by Haoyu. I asked  Haoyu to take those to the IPPM list.


Cheers, Frank


-----Original Message-----
From: Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Freitag, 14. August 2020 23:12
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
draft-ioametal-ippm-6man- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Martin Duke
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Merging deployment considerations into IPv6 IOAM document

Hi IOAM IPv6 authors,

At IETF 108, we discussed draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options and
draft-ioametal- ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment, and how to progress
with the deployment considerations. Since the hums showed no strong
opinions one way or the other in the WG, Ian and I have discussed and
would prefer to see the deployment considerations merged into the existing
and adopted IPv6 options document.

Both documents are short, and readers will benefit from any
discussion of deployment being available in the same document that
defines the extension header.

Please post an update for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options with this
content added when you have a chance!

Thanks,
Tommy