Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-sap: Attachement Circuits définition

Hi all, FWIW, this change was now implemented in https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-diff.html Cheers, Med De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Envoyé : jeudi 16 février 2023 13:59 À : opsawg@ietf.org; 'Robert Wilton' Cc : Wubo (lana) ; 'Richard Roberts' ; 'Oscar González de Dios' ;

Re: [OPSAWG] About draft-boucadair-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh

Hi Éric, all, Thank you for the comments. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : OPSAWG De la part de Eric Vyncke > (evyncke) > Envoyé : samedi 27 mai 2023 18:17 > À : opsawg@ietf.org > Objet : [OPSAWG] About draft-boucadair-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh > > Benoît,

Re: [OPSAWG] Andrew Alston's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-13: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Rob, I think so. Cheers, Med De : Rob Wilton (rwilton) Envoyé : vendredi 26 mai 2023 11:47 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; Andrew Alston - IETF ; John Scudder Cc : The IESG ; draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org Objet : RE: Andrew Alston's

Re: [OPSAWG] Andrew Alston's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-13: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Rob, I fully agree with your analysis. The good news is that the WG still have the opportunity to address the multiple EH occurrences case, and not specifically for the SRH case. FWIW, https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-boucadair-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-02.txt defines this NEW IE: ==

Re: [OPSAWG] Andrew Alston's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-13: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Andrew, (replying as the doc shepherd) Éric raised a similar comment. I shared already some context about that section: FYI, this point was discussed in the WG especially that there is no SPING document that motivates/explains the use of multiple SRHs. Please check:

Re: [OPSAWG] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Thomas, Why sending a zero length array is needed especially that the decompression is done at the data collector? Shouldn't this just work if srhIPv6Section is omitted when there is no SRH? Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : thomas.g...@swisscom.com > Envoyé : mercredi 24

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Éric, As the Doc Shepherd, I'm sharing some context related to this comment: > ### Section 6.3 > > Beside encapsulation, I do not see how multiple (S)RHs could be in > one IPv6 > packet. Anyway, the router will, per RFC 8200, only act on the > outermost one. > I.e., strongly suggest that

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt

Hi Thomas, all, Thanks for implementing the changes. Looks good to me except one point: 5.1 as about new IEs. I think you should make this change: OLD: 5.1.10. New IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment Type Subregistry NEW: 5.2. New IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment Type Subregistry Cheers, Med

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt

Re-, The designed experts for this sub-registry should be familiar with SRH. I think your concern can be fixed by making this change: OLD: The guidelines that are being followed by the designated experts for .. NEW: The designed experts for this registry should be familiar with SRH. The

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt

Re-, Thanks for the follow-up. Noted for the first point. On this one: > Regarding, IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment Type Subregistry. The point is to ease IANA's job by identifying the required actions (1) add new entries to an existing registry & (2) create a new registry. Thanks. Cheers, Med >

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt

Hi Thomas, I think there was a bug in -10: s/5.1.9.1. IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment Type Subregistry/5.2 IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment Type Subregistry Also, for this text: The allocation policy of this new subregistry is Expert Review (Section 4.5 of [RFC8126]) by SRH Experts. I don't

Re: [OPSAWG] [Ie-doctors] [IANA #1271817] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh (ipfix)

Hi Paul, Thanks for the review. Please see one comment inline. Cheers, Med De : Aitken, Paul Envoyé : lundi 15 mai 2023 16:17 À : drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : ie-doct...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Ie-doctors] [IANA #1271817] expert

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

Re-, FWIW, std vs. info was raised at least twice: * Please look at “Which stream” in Slide 5 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/slides-115-opsawg-an-update-to-the-tcpcontrolbits-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-information-element-00 *

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

Hi Joe, TCP-FLAGS is listed as normative as this is the authoritative reference for interpreting the flags by the collector, not RFC9293. I agree that RFC9293 would be sufficient for the exporter though. Cheers, Med De : OPSAWG De la part de Joe Clarke (jclarke) Envoyé : lundi 8 mai 2023

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-04

Re-, Great! FWIW, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/06/ includes now the note proposed below. Cheers, Med De : thomas.g...@swisscom.com Envoyé : vendredi 5 mai 2023 12:00 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; benoit.cla...@huawei.com; opsawg@ietf.org

[OPSAWG] IPFIX EH Occurrences (was RE: Minutes from 116)

Hi all, As a follow-up to this comment: == Thomas: IPv6 EH there can be only one occurrence. Consider multiple types in a package. == I prepared a candidate proposal at:

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-04

Hi Benoît, "To make it clear and avoid any issues (which I smell coming) with the IE-doctors at review time, I would make it very clear in the next version of the draft: [IANA Note: this unsigned8 to unsigned32 is actually a bug, as https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7270.html#section-4.12

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-04

Hi Thomas, all, An updated version with a first attempt to clarify the description of forwardingStatus can be seen at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/05/ This version also fixed some wrong pointers (e.g., nat46/nat64). Cheers, Med De : BOUCADAIR

Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes from 116

Hi Joe, all, One follow-up on this point: "Adrian Farrel (from chat): I'd like to see the ORAN draft presented in TEAS before OPSAWG adopts. There seems to be a lot of overlap with ongoing work in TEAS" (1) Not sure which draft Adrian was referring to, but an LS from O-RAN was received since

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-04

Hi Thomas, Thank you for raising this. RFC7270 actually uses unsigned32 + 7011#6.2. As only meanings are assigned with the first 8 bits, RFC7270 assumes 8-bit as the base encoding.. which is then used as type in the registry. I agree that that the current description confusing. This

[OPSAWG] TR: I-D Action: draft-boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-06.txt

Hi all, We updated the draft to address the comments received so far, especially a review from Kenichi and Luis Angel to control QoS at the AC level (more details can be seen at [1]). The full list of closed issues can be tracked at [2]. We also updated the description and examples. The AC

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-03.txt

Hi all, This version implements the changes shared with directorate reviewers. Also made some very minor edits to enhance the readability: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-03 Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : OPSAWG De la part de internet-

Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-02

Hi Ketan, Thank you for the review. Good points. I made some changes to take into account your suggestions: https://github.com/boucadair/-ipfix-rfc7125-update/commit/dbac6f4ad7617f3e0165068fb2e6e0053095459b. Some comments from my side: * I agree that the writeup should include a mention

Re: [OPSAWG] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-02

Hi Michael, Thank you for the review. The review will be ACKed in the next iteration. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Michael Scharf via Datatracker > Envoyé : mardi 2 mai 2023 12:38 > À : tsv-...@ietf.org > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update@ietf.org; last- >

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR POLL: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

Hi Joe, all, No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Cheers, Med From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Sent: mardi 4 avril 2023 22:03 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] IPR POLL: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update (FYI, we're going to get more consistent about doing

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Éric, Thanks for double checking. I also think this version is better. Cheers, Med > -Original Message- > From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker > Sent: vendredi 31 mars 2023 08:48 > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-...@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org;

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-02.txt

Hi all, This version follows the approach in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/NB_rRxXHAko9pHW-geKIB1B9rKw/. This version is ready for the WGLC. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : OPSAWG De la part de internet- > dra...@ietf.org > Envoyé : lundi 27 mars 2023 00:31 >

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Éric, all, FWIW, a new version with the changes discussed so far is now available online: A diff from the previous version can be seen at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-12 Cheers, Med De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Envoyé : vendredi 17

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang: AC provisioning vs. (slice) service provisioning

Hi all, Please find below an update of the attachment circuit effort: * The content is now split into three I-Ds * Common AC: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac * AC as a Service:

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update: bis vs. update

Hi all, I started identifying the changes that are required to replace 7125 instead of the current OLD/NEW patch. FWIW, please find below some pointers to track the changes: * Proposed PR: https://github.com/boucadair/-ipfix-rfc7125-update/pull/3 * Rendered html version:

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-00.txt

Hi Franck, all, Thank you for initiating this work. Please find some comments, fwiw: (1) The document overstates what it achieves. I would soften many of these statements. For example, It would be helpful to discuss whether the approach eases the identification of root causes and their

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption call for draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-09

Hi all, FWIW, please find below a review of this draft: * pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-09-rev%20Med.pdf * doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-09-rev%20Med.doc I

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Bernie, Thank you for clarifying. Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Bernie Volz Envoyé : jeudi 16 mars 2023 22:29 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : Eric Vyncke (evyncke) ; The IESG ; draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org;

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Éric, Thank you for the follow-up. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Eric Vyncke (evyncke) > Envoyé : jeudi 16 mars 2023 14:43 > À : Bernie Volz ; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > > Cc : The IESG ; draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted- > d...@ietf.org;

Re: [OPSAWG] Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi Paul, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Paul Wouters > Envoyé : mercredi 15 mars 2023 18:00 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Cc : The IESG ; draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted- > d...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; > dh...@ietf.org;

Re: [OPSAWG] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi Warren, Thanks for the comments. > Like Eric I wonder what should happen with a RADIUS client > receiving a > non-permitted DHCP option - but perhaps this is already well known > and > understood? Yes, that is part of 6929. For the reader's convenience, we added this reminder right before

Re: [OPSAWG] [dhcwg] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-10

Hi Tatuya, Thank you for the follow-up. Much appreciated. > If you're saying that this is just an example and its > applicability doesn't matter much, then I'd be happier if it were > clearer that the content of this section is a mere example. The introduction says the following: A

Re: [OPSAWG] Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi Paul, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Paul Wouters via Datatracker > Envoyé : mardi 14 mars 2023 19:21 > À : The IESG > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-...@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org;

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Re-, > solves the issue for section 3.2 but not for 3.1? Also, while you > say section 3 is about Radius attributes, it talks about dhcp > options. That's normal because DHCP options are encapsulated in the RADIUS attributes. However, these two sections involve RADIUS client/server not DHCP

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Bernie, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Bernie Volz > Envoyé : mardi 14 mars 2023 12:10 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Cc : Éric Vyncke ; The IESG ; > draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-...@ietf.org; opsawg- >

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Éric, Thank you for the review. The changes to address your review can be seen at: https://tinyurl.com/opsawg-add-latest. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Éric Vyncke via Datatracker > Envoyé : mardi 14 mars 2023 10:30 > À : The IESG > Cc :

Re: [OPSAWG] [dhcwg] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-10

Hi Tatuya, Thank you for the feedback. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 > Envoyé : lundi 13 mars 2023 20:46 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Cc : int-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted- > dns@ietf.org;

Re: [OPSAWG] [dhcwg] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-10

Hi Tatuya, Thank you for the follow-up. We submitted a new version to address your review: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11. Please see inline for more context, fwiw. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 >

Re: [OPSAWG] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-10

Hi Ralph, Thanks for the review. Made this change to the draft: s/Thanks to Ralf Weber for the dnsdir review/Thanks to Ralf Weber for the dnsdir reviews :-) Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Ralf Weber via Datatracker > Envoyé : lundi 13 mars 2023 06:53 > À : dns...@ietf.org

Re: [OPSAWG] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-10

Hi Tatuya, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Tatuya Jinmei via Datatracker > Envoyé : jeudi 9 mars 2023 23:10 > À : int-...@ietf.org > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns@ietf.org; last- > c...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org >

[OPSAWG] SAPs and Attachment Circuits Provisioning (was TR: I-D Action: draft-boro-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-01.txt)

Hi all, Now that the base SAP spec is stable, we started exploring an augmentation that exposes the set of attachment circuits that are terminated by the SAP. This network model is designed to ease the correlation between "Attachment Circuit-as-a-Service" request and the actual network

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update: bis vs. update

Hi all, One of the open questions raised in IETF#115 (3rd sub-bullet of bullet#2 in Slide#5 of [1]) is whether we publish this I-D as a bis, especially that each of the original RFC and the update draft have almost the same page count. I personally think it is much more cleaner to go for a bis

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update: std vs. Info

Hi all, One of the open questions raised in IETF#115 (2nd sub-bullet of bullet#2 in Slide#5 of [1]) is whether we publish this text as Informational (same as RFC7125) or we go for Standard Tacks (which makes more sense given the normative text and also because the spec relates to interop).

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-01.txt

Hi all, This version addresses a comment raised by Thomas about observability (more details at: https://github.com/boucadair/-ipfix-rfc7125-update/issues/1). Thomas, please check and let me know if any change is still needed. Thanks. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : OPSAWG

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang: AC provisioning vs. (slice) service provisioning

Hi all, Thanks Richard for sharing this update from ORAN. FWIW, a new revision of the Attachment Circuits as a Service Module is available online. The main changes are as follows: * Clarify the bearer concept and further elaborate the AC definition * Position AC vs. bearer *

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element

Hi Joe, all, draft draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-00 is now online. Please find below an update to this point mentioned in the call for adoption: ** · Edit a second draft to "clean" other entries in registry. This document is intended to include only simple fixes and which do not

Re: [OPSAWG] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09

Re-, > Ah - I missed that draft-ietf-add-dnr was already in the RFC Ed > Queue. :-) I consider that this issue is fixed. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Robert Sparks > Envoyé : mardi 21 février 2023 18:52 > À : Bernie Volz ; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > > Cc :

Re: [OPSAWG] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09

Hi Robert, Thanks for the follow-up. Bernie has provided the context for 162/144 codes. For your second comment, a first attempt to tweak the text can be seen at: https://tinyurl.com/opsawg-add-latest. This may be tweaked a little bit for better readability. Cheers, Med > -Message

Re: [OPSAWG] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09

Hi Robert, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Robert Sparks via Datatracker > Envoyé : vendredi 17 février 2023 21:30 > À : gen-...@ietf.org > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns@ietf.org; last- > c...@ietf.org;

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-sap: Attachement Circuits définition

Hi all, As part of the ongoing effort to expose attachment circuits as a service, we figured out that there is a need to clearly separate the notions of "attachment circuits" vs. "bearers" and clearly identify the physical setup vs. required properties over that layer to actually be able to

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07

Re-, Thanks Rob for the follow-up. A new version with the proposed changes is now online: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Envoyé : jeudi 9 février 2023 11:04 > À :

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07

Hi Rob, all, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Envoyé : mercredi 8 février 2023 20:39 > À : Alan DeKok > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns@ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org > Objet : RE: [OPSAWG] AD review of

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element

Hi Alex, For the side note, there is already https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7013#section-5.1, specifically this part: This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the IE- DOCTORS to overrule IETF consensus. Specifically, Information Elements in the IANA IE registry

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] Review of draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes

Hi Paul, Thanks for the follow-up. Good catches. These should be now fixed in the candidate -04: https://boucadair.github.io/simple-ipfix-fixes/#go.draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.html The diff can be tracked here:

[OPSAWG] TR: I-D Action: draft-boucadair-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-02.txt

Hi all, Now that I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options is finally in the tsvwg WGLC, there is a need to provide more operational tools, e.g., to measure the support/introduction of UDP options. This is even exciting given that transport protocols are usually extended by defining header options, while

Re: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes

Re-, Paul, Many thanks for the comments. All good points. An updated version to address almost all these points is online: URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-03.txt Status:

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element

Hi Thomas, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Point taken: Comment from thomas.g...@swisscom.com · Issue #1 · boucadair/ipfix-rfc7125-update (github.com). Cheers, Med De : OPSAWG De la part de thomas.g...@swisscom.com Envoyé :

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] FW: CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element

Hi Paul, all, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. If we follow the reasoning below, the IETF should never publish RFC7125 to fix the misalignment issue that was in RFC5102! It is unfortunate that the fix in 7125 is broken (which is fair because there was no complete (*) TCP flag registry at

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang: AC provisioning vs. (slice) service provisioning

Hi all, We updated the draft with many examples to illustrate the use of the model. A new subsection was added to illustrate how slices can be bound pre-provisioned AC. The service slice model can be greatly simplified by imply relying upon the AC model. At this stage, we are defining a new

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-15.txt

Hi all, This version implements the changes agreed with Roman and Zahed. -15 is ready to be sent to the RFC Editor. Thanks. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : I-D-Announce De la part de > internet-dra...@ietf.org > Envoyé : jeudi 19 janvier 2023 07:28 > À :

Re: [OPSAWG] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-14: (with COMMENT)

Hi Zahed, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker > Envoyé : mercredi 18 janvier 2023 22:03 > À : The IESG > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk;

Re: [OPSAWG] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-14: (with COMMENT)

Hi Roman, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Roman Danyliw via Datatracker > Envoyé : mardi 17 janvier 2023 22:08 > À : The IESG > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk; adr...@olddog.co.uk >

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element

Hi Joe, all, I support this work, obviously. FWIW, I don't have any IPR related to this I-D. Cheers, Med De : OPSAWG De la part de Joe Clarke (jclarke) Envoyé : mardi 17 janvier 2023 17:25 À : opsawg@ietf.org Objet : [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow

Re: [OPSAWG] Yangdoctors telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13

Hi Martin, Thanks for the review. Good catch. Fixed in -14. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Martin Björklund via Datatracker > Envoyé : mardi 17 janvier 2023 13:03 > À : yang-doct...@ietf.org > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org >

Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13

Hi Mach, Thanks for the review. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Mach Chen via Datatracker > Envoyé : mardi 17 janvier 2023 09:29 > À : rtg-...@ietf.org > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org > Objet : Rtgdir telechat review of

Re: [OPSAWG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13: (with COMMENT)

Hi Lars, Thanks for the review. Updated the draft to fix the nits https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/lxnm/commit/f19848036917bf9821f0088eba26eed34d8e00c0. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Lars Eggert via Datatracker > Envoyé : vendredi 13 janvier 2023 13:29 > À : The IESG >

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-08.txt

Hi all, This version takes into account the AD and dnsdir reviews. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : OPSAWG De la part de internet- > dra...@ietf.org > Envoyé : mercredi 11 janvier 2023 14:37 > À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Cc : opsawg@ietf.org > Objet : [OPSAWG] I-D Action:

Re: [OPSAWG] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07

Hi Ralf, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Ralf Weber via Datatracker > Envoyé : mercredi 11 janvier 2023 13:14 > À : dns...@ietf.org > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns@ietf.org; last- > c...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang: AC provisioning vs. (slice) service provisioning

Hi all, (ccing OPSAWG as the generic AC work may belong there) draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang includes some very few details about ACs, but those details can be hardly useful to actually provision ACs. Assuming that ACs will be created by "some magic" is not helpful either. An

Re: [OPSAWG] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13

Hi Ivaylo, Thank you for the review. This will be ACKed in the next iteration: https://tinyurl.com/sap-latest. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Ivaylo Petrov > Envoyé : lundi 9 janvier 2023 22:47 > À : draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org; sec...@ietf.org;

Re: [OPSAWG] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-12

Hi Linda, Sure. Please see https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13. Thanks. Cheers, Med De : Linda Dunbar Envoyé : mercredi 4 janvier 2023 17:47 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; gen-...@ietf.org Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;

[OPSAWG] Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh

Hi all, FWIW, the shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh is now available: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/shepherdwriteup/ Unless there are comments about the writeup, I think that the document can be sent to the IESG for publication. Cheers,

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05.txt

Hi Benoît, You got it. We are not defining a new ordering behavior, but simply adhering to what the IPFIX spec says on this matter. I would mix your proposed wording with what Thomas already implemented in

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05.txt

Hi Thomas, Thanks for preparing this revised version. The changes look good. However, and as discussed previously, I was expecting to see s/packet SHOULD be preserved in the IPFIX export according/packet should be preserved in the IPFIX export according. Some minor nits: * Please note that

Re: [OPSAWG] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-12

Hi Linda, Thank you for the review. SAPs can be seen as an abstraction of customer-facing Termination Points (TPs) with specific service provisions. However, a difference between SAPs and TPs is that (1) links are terminated by a single TP, not sets of TPs while (2) an Attachment Circuit

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07

Hi Rob, Thanks for the review. Candidate changes to address this review can be tracked at: https://tinyurl.com/opsawg-add-latest Please find inline some inputs in addition to the replies from Alan. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Envoyé : lundi 19

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-09

Hi Tom, all, We already have the following in the Introduction: A network may support multiple services, potentially of different types. Whether a SAP topology is dedicated to services of a specific service type, an individual service, or shared among many services of different

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-09

Hi Rob, The proposed edits look good to me. These are now implemented in the public -12. Thanks. cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Envoyé : vendredi 16 décembre 2022 12:11 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org;

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05.txt

Hi Thomas, all, Thanks for preparing this version. However, I think that not all the issues were fixed: * Section "5.9. srhActiveSegmentIPv6Type": please add the pointer to the IANA registry under "Additional Information". Please see the proposal from Benoît at:

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-09

Hi Rob, Thanks for the follow-up. After rereading the initial proposed updated text, I think that you have a valid point about the need for more clarity when describing the relationship between the various status data nodes. I released -11 with an attempt to make that better. Both the data

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG LC: Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)

Hi all, This version addresses all the comments raised in my previous review of the document. I have only very few comments: * Section “5.9. srhActiveSegmentIPv6Type”: please add the pointer to the IANA registry under “Additional Information”. * Section 6.3: * Is there any

[OPSAWG] TR: I-D Action: draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-00.txt

Hi Joe, all, FWIW, the simple fixes I-D is now public. Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : I-D-Announce De la part de internet-dra...@ietf.org Envoyé : mercredi 30 novembre 2022 09:45 À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org Objet : I-D Action: draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-00.txt A New

Re: [OPSAWG] Research on additional registry work

Hi Joe, all, Yes, I had a discussion with Benoît during the IETF meeting to see how to handle this. We agreed to proceed with at least two documents: * draft-boucadair-opsawg-rfc7125-update to update the TCP IPFIX RFC. * Edit a second draft to "clean" other entries in registry. This

Re: [OPSAWG] [Add] [dhcwg]  WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS [EXTENDED]

Hi Bernie, Thanks for the comment. I agree that reference may be confusing for some readers. I went with a less verbose text by simply replacing the OLD reference with “Section 8.3 of [This-Document]”. Please see https://tinyurl.com/opsawg-add-latest. [This-Document] will be replaced by the

Re: [OPSAWG] MINUTES: IETF 115 OPSAWG/Ops Area meeting

Hi Anthony, A request was made since 2022-10-12; no review received so far. Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns/reviewrequest/16465/. Cheers, Med De : OPSAWG De la part de Anthony Somerset Envoyé : jeudi 17 novembre 2022 07:14 À : Joe Clarke

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-09

Hi Rob, Thanks for the follow-up. Made some changes to hopefully fix the pending points: https://tinyurl.com/sap-latest. Also, added a NEW para to exemplify how controllers of each AS are using the model to provision inter-as VPN option A. This is to address a comment we received from an

Re: [OPSAWG] RFC 4014: Request to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust

Hi Ralph, Thank you for your positive answer. Much appreciated. Cheers, Med De : Ralph Droms Envoyé : jeudi 3 novembre 2022 18:28 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : jschn...@cisco.com; opsawg@ietf.org; dh...@ietf.org Objet : Re: RFC 4014: Request to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust

Re: [OPSAWG] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-13: (with COMMENT)

Hi Murray, Thanks for the comment. I suggest we go for these changes: (1) Section 3 OLD: Before using the model, the controller needs to establish topology visibility of the network and VPN. For example, the controller can use network information from [RFC8345],

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-05.txt

Hi Bernie, Thanks. A way to ease tracking the document by the dhw WG is that dhwg alias be added to "Send notices to" of this draft. Joe, can you please make that change into the tracker? Thank you. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Bernie Volz > Envoyé : mercredi 19 octobre

[OPSAWG] RFC 4014: Request to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust

Hi Ralph, John, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns/ updates some material that was published in RFC4014. As RFC4014 was published before 10 November 2008, we may need to include a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-05.txt

Hi all, This version merges the content that used to be in draft-boucadair-dhcwg-rfc4014-update. Bernie suggested offline that it is better to proceed with one single draft rather than two. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : OPSAWG De la part de internet- > dra...@ietf.org >

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-13: (with COMMENT)

Hi Éric, Thank you for the comments. Please see inline. I let my co-authors further comment as appropriate. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Éric Vyncke via Datatracker > Envoyé : mardi 18 octobre 2022 08:03 > À : The IESG > Cc :

Re: [OPSAWG] [dhcwg] [Add]  WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS

Re-, Thanks for the feedback. I submitted a new version which takes into account the comments received so far: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-04. Please let me know if I missed any of the comments. Thanks. Cheers, Med > -Message

Re: [OPSAWG] [Add]  WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS

Re-, Point taken for the registry. For 4014bis, the issue is that there is no IANA registry for this and that 4014 have only a frozen list of options with SHOULD and like. That text should be fixed, hence https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-dhcwg-rfc4014-update/. Cheers, Med De

Re: [OPSAWG] [Add]  WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS

Re-, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Add De la part de Bernie Volz Envoyé : lundi 17 octobre 2022 13:42 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : dh...@ietf.org; Joe Clarke (jclarke) ; opsawg ; ADD Mailing list ; rad...@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Add] [OPSAWG]  WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for

  1   2   3   4   5   >