Hi Qin,
Thanks for your review.
See inline.
On 8/23/2022 7:39 AM, Qin Wu wrote:
Support this draft, with a few comments and suggestions below:
1.It will be more reasonable to place use section before protocol
definition section.
On the principle yes.
However, we explained the use cases based on the newly specified IPFIX
IEs (which we introduced earlier)
By using srhSegmentIPv6BasicList(TBD5) or the
srhSegmentIPv6ListSection (TBD6), srhActiveSegmentIPv6 (TBD4),
srhSegmentIPv6sLeft (TBD7), srhActiveSegmentIPv6Type(TBD9), the
forwardingStatus(89), and some counters information, it is possible
to answer the following questions (amongst others):
Proposal: We can write a paragraph or two in the introduction section
explaining the use cases, without going in the details of the IPFIX
IEs... and still keep the Use Cases section as it is.
2.Please add reference to RFC defining SRv6 Endpoint Behavior in both
abstract and introduction section
Based on discussions with the RFC-editors, I believe we try to avoid
having references in the RFC abstracts.
Alice, in cc, can confirm.
For the introduction section, sure.
3.Please add reference to RFC which allocate 89 Element ID to
forwardingStatus;
RFC 7270.
Note that this RFC is informational, so it should be an informative
reference.
4.Use case is not clear how these new IPFIX Information Elements work
together with existing IPFIX Information Elements
Or how these new IPFIX Information Elements work together with SRv6.
The appendix should help you with that.
Appendix A. IPFIX Encoding Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1. Template Record and Data Set with Segment Basic List . . 12
A.2. Template Record and Data Set with Segment List Section . 15
A.3. Template Record and Data Set with SRH Section . . . . . . 17
A.4. Options Template Record and Data Set for SRv6 end point
behavior and Locator Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Regards, Benoit
-Qin
*发件人:*OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] *代表 *Paolo Volpato
*发送时间:*2022年8月22日20:00
*收件人:*[email protected]
*主题:*Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
Hi,
I have read the draft and think it is useful in the area of network
operations.
Therefore I support its adoption.
BR
Paolo
*From:*OPSAWG <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Joe Clarke
(jclarke)
*Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:14 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION:
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
Hello, WG. We’d like to begin a two week call for adoption of
this work. Even as an individual draft it has already received
some reviews and has iterated quite a bit. Based on IETF 114
there does seem to be interest in adopting this in opsawg, but we
need a formal adoption poll.
Please review and provide your adoption thoughts no later than
September 1, 2022.
Thanks.
Joe
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
