IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Notes on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Fri, 26 April 2024 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
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 7E0D1C151551; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 03:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OAJ97ResQvPl; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 03:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B726C151070; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 03:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VQpbf5sJ0z6D8Wn; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:18:54 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.131]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE415140A70; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:21:19 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500006.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.219) by frapeml100008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:21:19 +0200
Received: from frapeml500006.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.219]) by frapeml500006.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.219]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:21:19 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, "draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark@ietf.org" <draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Notes on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark
Thread-Index: AQHalulfZwbveubKrEi7JZm71r8eI7F6URLg
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:21:19 +0000
Message-ID: <7e8f55747f9d4c7db53a5c46606ee7a6@huawei.com>
References: <CA+RyBmWZY-p6XyYHZDHyvGou5De8iWQ20seTDjU8J6qiyvW1VQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmWZY-p6XyYHZDHyvGou5De8iWQ20seTDjU8J6qiyvW1VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.203.21]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7e8f55747f9d4c7db53a5c46606ee7a6huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/vgfNTMtUyVabPejHVux1PAEjzPw>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Notes on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:21:24 -0000

Hi Greg,
Thank you for your review and for your opinion of the draft.
I fully agree that the intended status must be standards track. I will change it in the next revision.

Regards,

Giuseppe

From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 10:20 AM
To: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>; draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark@ietf.org
Subject: Notes on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark

Dear, Authors et al.,
thank you for your continued work on the Alternate Marking method. In my opinion, draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark provides an essential IEs making the use of IPFIX operationally viable option for the Alternate Marking method. While I've read the document, it seems that its current track, Informational, may not be consistent with the request for specific actions from IANA. Could it be that the Standard track is more appropriate for the draft?

Regards,
Greg

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status