Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

Thanks for your comments.

I visited IANA in Philly to validate this propose, but we could 
re-evaluate & discuss about it.

We need a registry because just telling that we take the value from 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#segment-routing-header-flags 
is not sufficient as we also need to specify the following IPFIX fields:
- Abstract Data Type. (unsigned8 in this srhFlagsIPv6 case)
- Data Type Semantics (flags in srhFlagsIPv6 case)

Now, if your point is that we don't really to mention the initial values ...

    Initial values in the registry are defined by the table
           below.

    +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
           | Value  |    Description    | Reference               |
    +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
           | 0-1    | Unassigned |                                      |
    +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
           | 2      | O-flag            |
    [RFC-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-13]  |
    +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
           | 3-7    | Unassigned |                                      |
    +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+

                        Table 2: "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" registry

... I agree it's not strictly necessary but it helps (me/the IPFIX 
experts) to understand, from this document, which type of values are 
currently available.

See inline.

On 9/16/2022 9:34 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thank you for preparing this revised version.
>
> I think almost all my comments are addressed in this version. However, 
> I still don’t see the need to have new registries that only mirror 
> existing ones. For example, and unless I missed some subtleties, it 
> would be sufficient to say that the flag values are taken from 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#segment-routing-header-flags 
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#segment-routing-header-flags>rather 
> than adding the following in the I-D:
>
> +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>       | Value  |    Description |              Reference               |
>
> +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>       | 0-1    | Unassigned |                                      |
>
> +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>       | 2      | O-flag            | [RFC-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-13]  |
>
> +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>       | 3-7    | Unassigned |                                      |
>
> +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>                    Table 2: "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" registry
>
> which is similar in term of encoding and values as what was set by 
> RFC9256:
>
>    IANA has registered the following in the "Segment Routing Header
>    Flags" subregistry in the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
>    Parameters" registry:
>                      +=====+=============+===========+
>                      | Bit | Description | Reference |
> +=====+=============+===========+
>                       | 2   | O-flag      |RFC 9259  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9259>   |
>                       +-----+-------------+-----------+
>
> BTW, I guess you initially meant:
>
> NEW:
>
>                    Table 2: "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" registry
>
>    Note to IANA:  Add a note to the "Segment Routing Header Flags" 
> registry
>
>       so that new values are echoed in the new "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags”
>
You are right (since 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#segment-routing-header-flags 
is "IETF review" while 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml is "Expert Review")


> instead of CURRENT:
>
>                    Table 2: "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" registry
>
>    Note to IANA:  Add a note to the registry so that new values are
>
>       echoed in the new "IPFIX SRv6 EndPoint Behavior
>
> The same comment applies for the values that can be directly taken 
> from 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml#srv6-endpoint-behaviors.
>

Yes
OLD:

                Table 4: "IPFIX SRV6 Endpoint Behavior" registry


    Note to IANA:  Add a note to the registry so that new values are
       echoed in the new "IPFIX SRv6 EndPoint Behavior

NEW:

                Table 4: "IPFIX SRV6 Endpoint Behavior" registry


    Note to IANA:  Add a note to the "IPFIX SRV6 Endpoint Behavior" 
registry so that new values are
       echoed in the new "IPFIX SRv6 EndPoint Behavior

Regards, Benoit

> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
> *De :*[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 15 septembre 2022 20:08
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>; 
> jclarke=[e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Cc :* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Objet :* RE: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
> Dear Med,
>
> Many thanks for the comprehensive review. Much appreciated. We merged 
> all your input to the upcoming -01 release. 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01.txt
>
> The diff to the current -00 version can be found here: 
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-00.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01.txt 
> <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-00.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01.txt>
>
> For some we need further clarifications if we addressed them 
> correctly. I would appreciate if you could clarify the following three 
> points:
>
> Med> Section 2, remark: "Why do we need three IE, 
> srhSegmentIPv6ListSection, srhSegmentIPv6BasicList and srhSectionIPv6, 
> to expose SRH Segment List
>
> Thomas> Section 5.1 should provide the answer. If that should not be 
> sufficient, please suggest how this could be better expressed.
>
> Med> Section 2: remark: "as series of n octets" is not clearly 
> comprehensible.
>
> Thomas> Extended to "as series of n octets in IPFIX". Does that makes 
> it clearer?
>
> Med> Section 4.11, remark: "Do you really need to define a new 
> registry here?"
>
> Thomas> The registry could potentially be used (and updated) by non 
> IPFIX people.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Thomas
>
> *From:*OPSAWG <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of 
> *[e-mail]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:19 AM
> *To:* Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: 
> draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
> Hi all,
>
> I support.
>
> FWIW, the authors may found some quick comments at:
>
>   * pdf:
>     https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05-rev%20Med.pdf
>     <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2FIETF-Drafts-Reviews%2Fraw%2Fmaster%2Fdraft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05-rev%2520Med.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C9b7f1961451f468f5ed208da8fe08358%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637980491680499647%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GmDWAcd71AYy6N%2BWx5469KaEjcmDCLJ%2FDsVv3LINv88%3D&reserved=0>
>   * doc:
>     https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05-rev%20Med.doc
>     <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2FIETF-Drafts-Reviews%2Fraw%2Fmaster%2Fdraft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05-rev%2520Med.doc&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C9b7f1961451f468f5ed208da8fe08358%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637980491680499647%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RCDJoUkBTJ%2Fooe%2BvJEOTagdDY64LIVvfrH4RhyBsAKI%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
> *De :*OPSAWG <[e-mail]> *De la part de* Joe Clarke 
> (jclarke)
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 18 août 2022 22:14
> *À :* [e-mail]
> *Objet :* [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
> Hello, WG.  We’d like to begin a two week call for adoption of this 
> work.  Even as an individual draft it has already received some 
> reviews and has iterated quite a bit.  Based on IETF 114 there does 
> seem to be interest in adopting this in opsawg, but we need a formal 
> adoption poll.
>
> Please review and provide your adoption thoughts no later than 
> September 1, 2022.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joe
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.