Re: [ippm] WGLC for IOAM Flags and Direct Exports

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Mon, 06 September 2021 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 CAF013A2406 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 23:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JYdhbXjrK02h for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 23:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 CEABD3A2403 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 23:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 1ADE282A1303FDD779F2; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:58:40 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1866wHEL034412; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:58:17 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:58:17 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:58:17 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb6135bc09e8574b8c
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202109061458173490763@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <A4F59F82-7F47-452B-9E63-0FDFBB812CEC@apple.com>
References: A4F59F82-7F47-452B-9E63-0FDFBB812CEC@apple.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
To: <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 1866wHEL034412
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/y9yz-W-yKpG-1IsMbBcw_JNpp3I>
Subject: Re: [ippm] =?utf-8?q?WGLC_for_IOAM_Flags_and_Direct_Exports?=
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: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 06:58:52 -0000

Hi Tommy, Ian, et al.,

I think draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export provides a very useful IOAM mode, which is more attractive than other IOAM modes in some deployments, so I support this draft to progress.
I have no opinion on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags.

Best Regards,
Xiao Min
------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人:TommyPauly
收件人:IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org);
日 期 :2021年08月31日 04:58
主 题 :[ippm] WGLC for IOAM Flags and Direct Exports
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

Hello IPPM,
This email starts a Working Group Last Call on two related IOAM documents, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags and draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export.
In-situ OAM Loopback and Active Flags
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags/https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-06
In-situ OAM Direct Exporting
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-06
Please provide feedback by replying to this email with your reviews and if you think these documents are ready to progress, by Wednesday, September 15.
Best,
Tommy & Ian