Re: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Susan,

Thank you for this notice, very helpful.
I have two concerns as follow:
1. As far as I know, iFIT is not a standardized term defined in any IPPM RFC or WG draft, however iFIT includes Alternate Marking and In-situ OAM which both are defined in IPPM. I'm not sure it's appropriate, that looks out of order to me. The right order IMHO is to define iFIT in IPPM first (if necessary), and then to define protocol extensions (e.g. BGP extensions) to support iFIT.
2. In IPPM there is draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state that achieves the similar function intended by draft-wang-idr-ifit-capabilities, the two documents looks overlapping to some extent.

Best Regards,
Xiao Min
------------------Original------------------
From: SusanHares <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2022年06月24日 23:29
Subject: [ippm] IDR adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-cpabilities-05.txt - Request for input (6/24 to 7/8/2022)
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

Marcus, Tommy and ippm WG:
The IDR WG would like your feedback on two drafts in IDR:
1. draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-03.txt – The IDR WG is planning WG LC on this draft in August.
2. draft-wang-idr-ifit-capabilities-05.tt – The IDR WG has consensus on adopting this draft.
Please let us know if you have any concerns regarding these drafts.
We note that these drafts reference:
1) draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
2) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data
3) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export
4) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags
5) draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these two drafts.
I am one of the IDR WG co-chairs and the shepherd for these two drafts.
You can reply to this thread or provide information to your WG chairs.
Cheers, Susan Hares