Hi Tianran, I'm fairly much in agreement that this is a topic that should be worked on in the IETF. I am somewhat nervous about the overlap between this and OAM work undertaken in a number of working groups chiefly in the Routing Area, and I hope there can be some careful coordination. My feeling is that we should start with the requirements draft at once. I am pretty sure that once inside the WG we can quickly get important input from operators and bash it into shape. I think that the data format document may be close to being ready for adoption, but I think that there are some largish wrinkles that could do with being ironed out first. Chief among these are: - A thorough investigation of the numeric impact on the amount of data that can be sent. In other words, the change to the effective MTU - The Abstract specifically says how encapsulation will be managed for IPv6. Not only does the document later say that this is out of scope, but the mechanism proposed in the Abstract is one that worries me. - I don't like that the OAM only works if every node on the path supports it. I would like for us to achieve some form of comfortable b/w compatibility. - As an "experiment" I would like to understand how the experiment would be conducted and what would constitute success Why do I think these points should be addressed before adoption? I am worried that without looking at them first there will be an assumption that the document's is already set and 'radical' changes cannot be made. I think that my points can be handled by: - Adding a section on "MTU Concerns" that provides a pointer to the relevant part of the requirements draft, and offers up some basic maths on the expected size of OAM information in a packet. - Removing the offending text from the Abstract - Adding a section on b/w compatibility (maybe just as a placeholder) and cleaning up the text that requires every node on the path to support in-situ OAM. - Adding a section scoping the experiment that the authors think they want the WG to perform. As for the proof of transit work, I think it is a bit of a mess at the moment. It seems to be growing new approaches and options, each with drawbacks and issues. And I'm not clear on the objectives. This might be handled as with the previous document by describing and scoping the experiment, but as currently written, it would appear that the intention is to research a number of potential approaches to proof of transit rather than to experiment with a particular protocol solution, and that might make the document better suited to the NMRG. So I would like to apply a bit more caution to that document. In any event, during the process of adoption, do you think you could cut down the front page authors to a manageable number so that we know who is editing the work going forward? Thanks, Adrian From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhoutianran Sent: 07 December 2016 06:37 To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts Hi All, In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive response on related drafts. So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But you can give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D. The question is: Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts? It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the drafts. If "yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to improve the drafts? If "no", it is important that you provide reasons. This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20. Thanks, Tianran & Warren
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
