Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09

[Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Thank you for your support! Your suggestions for improvement are noted and will be reflected in the next revision.

Best,
Haoyu

From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 6:33 AM
To: 'Tianran Zhou' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09

Hi,

I sent the authors comments on a previous version of the document and
the authors made updates to address my concerns.

Considering this adoption poll, I have done another review of the draft.
I think it provides a useful overview of in-situ telemetry approaches and
Will serve the WG well. I'm glad that the authors have included section
3.2 because draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf is also important work and we need to
progress the two documents in close relationship. I am also glad there
are good and clear references to the iOAM work.

I support adoption of the draft and commit to review it during WG
progress. I also have a few comments below: I don't think they need to
be addressed before adoption so long as they are picked up some time.

Thanks,
Adrian

===

The Abstract is about 10 lines too long. We should be aiming at no more
than 25 lines.

I would remove the first sentence. It is out of place and begs the
question of what "telemetry" means.

---

The style guide says that the "Requirements Language" should be placed
in the body of the document. I suggest you create Section 2.1 for it.

---

A couple of things with Section 4.4 worry me. Proposing new extension
headers for IPv4 is unlikely to go down well in the IETF where new work
on IPv4 is now frowned upon, and where IPv4 extension headers are
considered somewhat fragile. Additionally, I think you need to be very
careful with proposals around the Router Alert, and you shouldn't
mention it or RFC 2113 without also mentioning RFC 6398. Lastly, I think
that you may be giving too much attention to individual drafts that
possibly do not yet have a body of support in the IETF: in particular,
referencing draft-herbert-ipv4-eh may be premature.

---

I think we will need to give more attention to discussing security in
section 8. It is true that the details of the security for different
mechanisms are contained in the individual referenced documents. Our
focus in this document should be considering the overall security of
IFIT approaches. This should serve as a guide to the developers of the
various referenced documents, and it should provide observations on how
(or even if) to use IFIT systems.

From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: 09 December 2019 05:27
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09

Hi WG,

On IETF 106 meeting, we saw predominant interest and support to this draft, especially from operators. The authors then resolved all the open issues.
As requested by the authors, this email starts a 2 weeks working group adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C2e5ca8b5f29c41b9b59e08d77e472fc3%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637116716543648909&sdata=t42ssFcgSVLkM2V3x6e2Z5qeppa1rcNIvK60S%2FkVAt8%3D&reserved=0>

If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be willing to review and help the draft.
If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point to work on, please say why.
This poll will run until Dec 23..

Thanks,
Tianran as co-chair