Hi Tianran & Warren,
I agree with the intents/benefits that proposal can offer. I do worry about added bytes required to every In Situ packet (i.e., MTU). (1) Is the proposal being too flexible? For example, data like opaque application data can be powerful, but it can easily eat up lots of MTU. OAM-trace-type can complicate implementations as included data (and their offset) can vary for each bit combinations. (2) Are all data fields defined as right size? Considering that node ID is defined as 24 bits and interface ID is defined as 16 bits, I'm assuming that they are IDs defined by a centralized controller/orchestrator. If so, do they really need all to be that large? One thought is to start off with couple of "tight" data types (not flexible & least bits required) which addresses majority and/or high priority use cases. With this approach, it will also simplify the "error handlings" which the documents are lacking (and needs some attention if documents are adopted by the WG). > Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts? RE: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt Yes, I'd like to see this work moving forward. RE: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt Yes, I'd like to see this work moving forward. RE: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt No, I'm not quite sure why this document is needed. > 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? Yes, I have read the documents. For the first two documents, I do plan to further review. Regards, Nobo On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Zhoutianran <zhoutian...@huawei.com> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
