<Chair> It need not wait. We would adopt on this list if we adopt in opsawg. And this work has already seen some discussion on-list today alone. As you say, we have many of the interest IPFIX crowd here already. It also seems like there is some IPPM cross-members to give this a proper holistic review. </Chair>
Speaking as a contributor, I read the draft when Thomas copied it here, and I think it would fit with recent work being progressed through opsawg. Joe From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Benoit Claise <benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 at 23:23 To: thomas.g...@swisscom.com <thomas.g...@swisscom.com>, i...@ietf.org <i...@ietf.org>, opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>, justin.iur...@uliege.be <justin.iur...@uliege.be> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [ippm] draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport Dear all, On 3/19/2024 10:40 AM, thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com> wrote: Dear Justin, Dear OPSAWG and IPPM working groups Thanks a lot for the presentation at IPPM. I believe that this work needs further refinement by defining also IPFIX entities for IOAM which allow a decomposition of each IOAM dimension fields, thus enabling IPFIX Flow Aggregation as described in RFC 7015 which is a requirement to scale out for IOAM DEX and Trace Option Type. I believe this should be performed after the working group adoption and me should move forward quickly since IOAM is now getting implemented by vendors and applied by operators. While shepherding IPFIX at OPSAWG, I noticed that most discussions where around choosing the right data type and aligning with the IPFIX registry. Not so much about exposing the right dimensions from the data plane. draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry is already adopted and well progressed at OPSAWG. I suggest that draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport is being adopted together with draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark. With that we are covering both Hybrid Type options developed at IPPM. In order to pool the IPFIX entity definitions, I believe OPSAWG would be the best place to move with draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport forward. Regardless of the WG (*), I believe those two drafts should be adopted soon. (*) OPSAWG or IPPM, it doesn't matter too much as we have the right expert inputs anyway. I am a little concerned that OPSAWG meeting was yesterday, so if we ask for WG adoption, it would be typically at the next physical meeting in 4 months. IMO, waiting that long is not required Regards, Benoit I would appreciate feedback from IPPM and OPSAWG wherever they share my opinion or not. Best wishes Thomas _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
