IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Protocol (Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 09 August 2016 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E214912D15E; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 z1loVznaLrPv; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x233.google.com (mail-yw0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EC5912D128; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x233.google.com with SMTP id j12so11102146ywb.2; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 10:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wb18Ych1LVQFhJvekMBBlBYW0GZaOSHl/1E4615M1R4=; b=APpKPpoaroNLxa5kz7Jcx/TXZHNHfQgNf2qod2nd1vu9W2YJDi2zzpnqmWoeN/YpTj Y+ExK+8ceinXF+IbEmwHa0aDzyW2wmumHS+nMoimBFPVkwKMEgnKTEFumcxgF0tS9ZUK 9BXwjT6lh2KgQhqT4RCEMw8cl1nUe4DdL/LuP386zZJIpuIjrP6FBG0+ZIgUEsNHA+i3 xAJlF+WDYcWNWkKHgtGQOnVgL8/qO7gaevgeKSG6UdCnypbImIZ5e38I50fgAqMNgwFo TTQCxQsPeDe5JLdG0p8rxJiB8iQuOdwDc5+jzXILMUh1qGnZBeJYz0n2LvW/nn/QuRhJ SNiA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wb18Ych1LVQFhJvekMBBlBYW0GZaOSHl/1E4615M1R4=; b=hAVej1Rkxx9MwwaPMVjSuByS+ELaIm99MPnxniCc6nzR5G2SU2EgTJvLSqVBOVcN5x s3OSKz0ojVQSoRY2xNNAWRBhAAof9DsgWJwMzFVKk8o59PW1WO+T6LgzyNz9hvs9k32q CFMUFowz+o42+Ds4ao5P72b9CjcZGwiNGXutQ7Z5Pg4NYNZBFLsxw6peyNENwSmxwcfV sKdr46UfseBzLJ/6jCmQkpz13eeTJ0Oz8QzTW96ZM0jsMB24BF9/5UfwpMue5kiJf/lL pCdFZHK/RZup1SCQx8zl8ScvAAW34uxPxO8dVoEfpHknOYShb1N2jzLeHMmFeSGItzwb 80Eg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuhRkWNvSEABkHc+zvUVSWujcRGLm1Ping2dHvFhibziBIk0Yxxf4/V2+YIViuHhj9f92//YlCVPr47vw==
X-Received: by 10.129.3.214 with SMTP id 205mr41596912ywd.206.1470763954523; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 10:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.210.211 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <79df5dc2-84e8-b2e7-10fc-4a582ed344b6@isi.edu>
References: <CA+RyBmVzweMMTK3=ystVBMgWt3pxfCQ35qWgWH8ewhB=JO5nvQ@mail.gmail.com> <79df5dc2-84e8-b2e7-10fc-4a582ed344b6@isi.edu>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 10:32:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXm1_dZ4S0JyRobauxd8MYZg=GxVMcm8M7CaTD868mfLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142822a0ed4ea0539a6eb4d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-ooam-dt/yp8Km2rFR3e1fGVfhOotPusKmMc>
Cc: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Protocol (Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)
X-BeenThere: rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: List is used by the Routing Area Overlay OAM Design team for internal coordination and discussion <rtg-ooam-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-ooam-dt>, <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-ooam-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-ooam-dt>, <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 17:32:37 -0000

Hi Joe,
indeed, I'll continue working on the drafts. Greatly appreciate technical
comments and welcome contributions by new authors.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

> Can anyone (Greg in particular, as lead author) explain to me why this
> document creates an IANA registry for a value that isn't indicated in its
> header, and why the values in the header (e.g., Msg Type, flags) aren't
> defined?
>
> I.e., this doesn't seem like it proposes much at all...
>
> Joe
>
> On 8/7/2016 7:02 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>
> But wouldn't it be simpler if all proposals used protocol type to identify
> OAM payload? And if the protocol type is OAM, then after the protocol
> header have OOAM Header, e.g. as proposed in draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-
> header <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-00>.
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email