IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Poll for NVO3 WG adoption and IPR call for draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Mon, 10 April 2017 01:59 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87459129405; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 18:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 5WEYGFzTS3tJ; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 18:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A02931293FC; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 18:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1344; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1491789592; x=1492999192; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=6Nj0OfX6oqtejTWb0CBOan70/avT6VCiRfCGgNp3LfE=; b=Nuw31Gu1Mvx5FHDvH8KW5Z/7WQu623mf65Ten/dZ8Jk1pr1sRTeo/OSG qA/K7cRlKYddsYfaKq1znub0uw31uP27Y+Mb7IE0ZDYa9nzXCgTfU4QeD 2G4tQn3HuqzEGdBmLIPjrgCCHfz2Nl60KoG8SLU3iTYhaSKz+2I+54Qg9 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AOBAAp5upY/5RdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgygrgWwHnxMfiBqNPYIPhiQCGoNEQRYBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQEBAQIBHQYRRQULAgEIGAICJgICAh8RFRACBA4FG4lcAw0IqFuCJochDYMtAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYELhUWCBQmCYoJRhQsugjEBBJxAOwGOG4Q9gX+FLooUiwCIfwEmATCBBVsVUgGEfoFKdYd7gQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,180,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="409901562"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Apr 2017 01:59:51 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-018.cisco.com (xch-rtp-018.cisco.com [64.101.220.158]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3A1xpfk010113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 01:59:51 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-018.cisco.com (64.101.220.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 21:59:50 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 21:59:50 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: David Mozes <davidm@mellanox.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, "draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header@ietf.org" <draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Poll for NVO3 WG adoption and IPR call for draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03
Thread-Topic: Poll for NVO3 WG adoption and IPR call for draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03
Thread-Index: AQHSrqf5WceqzCP3V0C9KzvolVDqmqG6qLQAgAN5UAA=
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 01:59:50 +0000
Message-ID: <C1738E77-9771-4DDD-B838-378E56EDD8B5@cisco.com>
References: <D474E04D-EFD4-4D27-ACB7-9EB37BE812E4@nokia.com> <16320f45864d445f9a1bc3463d0c6352@TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local> <HE1PR0501MB213886487B9564BBC6D85D62B6080@HE1PR0501MB2138.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmUc4un0v5tWDJpq25WnH=QQWmzc0aF+jrHzHOUyydkXwA@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0501MB2138D6844278F1C18F6B1686B60A0@HE1PR0501MB2138.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmUWgVBXMxt=P58LrYLvge0ZmVx-cx0m=hvtGfwMBhjp1A@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0501MB2138A335D37EB072AAC89240B60D0@HE1PR0501MB2138.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmWLhED3D3Eu=YByDyA7wxpQz37_uS6fbO+8ZjC0yBTNcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmWLhED3D3Eu=YByDyA7wxpQz37_uS6fbO+8ZjC0yBTNcA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.217.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3CC268BE710C6C4FB99A895B5E633585@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/JvUIi2FppJm-LKCRq-j_Qw1Q6Ww>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 01:59:56 -0000


> On Apr 7, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The main thing is:
> 
> I think yours work and the OAM design team should be focus to define the OAM related data and  the OAM mechanism and there is a lot to do on this area .and try to make it uniform on all the diffenet encapsulations (NVO3,BEIR,SFC) and not dealing with the encapsulation itself. By this you mixed all things up and we will achieve nothing .
> 
> GIM2>>  I feel that you assume that the proposed solution is for NVO3 only and thus had not thought about SFC and BIER. Dave Dolson had pointed out that the proposed solution is beneficial for SFC.
> 
> 

Could you please elaborate on what specifically and precisely the benefit for SFC is? I might have missed what’s other than overhead in this indirection.

Thanks,

—
Carlos Pignataro, carlos@cisco.com

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email