Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption Call for draft-morton-ippm-capacity-metric-method

From: Nieminen Klaus <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 05:01:51 +0000

Greetings,

Yes, I would think this to be mature enough to be a WG document, so I support adoption and would be reading also the future versions of this draft, so willing to give comments when I have any. I will send one comments in a separate email soon.

Best, Klaus

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: ippm <[email-masked]> Per conto di Brian Trammell (IETF)
Inviato: luned? 18 novembre 2019 11:57
A: IETF IPPM WG <[email-masked]>
Oggetto: [EXT] [ippm] Adoption Call for draft-morton-ippm-capacity-metric-method

Greetings, all,

The IPPM working group has been asked to adopt draft-morton-ippm-capacity-metric-method-01 as as a working group document.

This message begins an adoption call to end on Monday 9 December 2019. Please send a message to [email-masked]:

- whether you believe the draft is in scope for the WG and mature enough to be a WG document, and if not, why not
- whether you are willing to review the document

Many thanks, cheers,

Brian (as co-chair)
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. 

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. 

Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario.

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:05:43 +0800
From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
To: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption Call for
	draft-morton-ippm-capacity-metric-method
Message-ID:
	<[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi,
I've read the draft and support its adoption by the IPPM WG.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:57 AM Brian Trammell (IETF) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Greetings, all,
>
> The IPPM working group has been asked to adopt
> draft-morton-ippm-capacity-metric-method-01 as as a working group document.
>
> This message begins an adoption call to end on Monday 9 December 2019.
> Please send a message to [email-masked]:
>
> - whether you believe the draft is in scope for the WG and mature enough
> to be a WG document, and if not, why not
> - whether you are willing to review the document
>
> Many thanks, cheers,
>
> Brian (as co-chair)
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/attachments/20191119/b96cf73e/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:47:37 +0000
From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
	<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Comment on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-00
Message-ID:
	<[email-masked]>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Xiao,

thanks for following up. Apparently the behavior described in draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-00 isn?t a bug ? as we speculated in the IPPM WG meeting yesterday, but the desired behavior that we arrived at after WG discussions in 6man and with several IPv6 experts.  See https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/commit/48175cf89de6369a4d01017ec80c07b34f57f17c#diff-803b63dbe26303f504708318e255d884 (?Don't forward an IOAM packet unless configured to do so.?)
This behavior for IPv6 is to ensure that packets with IOAM do not accidentally leak from a domain that employs IPv6.
This also means for IPv6, things are more constrained than what is stated in the more generic draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-08.

Cheers, Frank

From: ippm <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Montag, 18. November 2019 13:18
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ippm] Comment on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-00

Hi Frank,

Repeat what I said on the mic this morning as below.

In section 3 of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-00 it says:

"Unless a particular interface is explicitly enabled (i.e. explicitly   configured) for IOAM, a router MUST drop packets which contain extension headers carrying IOAM data-fields."

But in section 4.4 of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-08 it says:

"If not all nodes within a domain are IOAM capable, IOAM tracing information (i.e., node data, see below) will only be collected on those nodes which are IOAM capable.  Nodes which are not IOAM capable will forward the packet without any changes to the IOAM-Data-Fields."

It seems they're not in alignment.

Best Regards,

Xiao Min
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/attachments/20191119/c0cf0606/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

------------------------------

End of ippm Digest, Vol 186, Issue 23
*************************************