Subject: [Ippm-ioam-ix-dt] IPPM IOAM Virtual Meeting, October 14th, 2020

From: Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:39:33 +0300

IPPM IOAM Design Team
Virtual meeting
October 14th, 2020, 06:00 UTC
Webex meeting

Attendees:
Frank Brockners, Barak Gafni, Mickey Spiegel, Tal Mizrahi.

Minutes by Tal Mizrahi.

Summary:
========
- An updated version of the flag draft will be posted in the next two weeks.
- The open issue in the Direct Exporting draft will be discussed in
the upcoming IETF meeting.
- The next meeting will be on October 28th at 06:00 UTC - please note
the DST changes in the next few weeks.

Discussion:
===========

Flag draft
==========
Tal: Flag draft was updated - I created a pull request based on our
discussion. Please let me know if there are any comments, and I will
try to get more feedback on the mailing list. We will post an updated
draft before the upcoming IETF meeting.
Frank: the submission deadline is November 2nd.

Direct Exporting (DEX) draft
============================
Tal: there was some discussion on the mailing list about the Hop Count
issue. Tommy agreed that time will need to be spent on this issue in
the upcoming IPPM meeting in November.
Frank: as I said on the mailing list, if we add the Hop Count field
that would be re-implementing a feature that already exists. Haoyu
said that Hop Count and IP Hop Limit are not the same.
Barak: the main question is whether this is a discussion for the data
draft, or for DEX.
Frank: right, and Tommy said we do not necessarily want to define a
separate mechanism to replace hop limit for non-IP networks. I believe
we would need to understand what is the definition of a hop limit in
non-IP networks.
Barak: right, and this question is not necessarily in the scope of the
DEX draft, but a wider scope.
Frank: right, it may be a matter for a different draft, i.e., how to
apply a hop count / hop limit to non-IP networks.
Barak: it is not within the scope of DEX.
Frank: looks like the thread was only among the IPPM chairs and DEX
authors. We need to widen the distribution list and see if there are
comments from other people.

AOB
===
Frank: there were some comments regarding the IPv6 draft. I will work on those.
Barak: let me know if there are any other comments regarding the new
extension draft
(https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/blob/master/drafts/draft-gafni-ippm-ioam-additional-data-fields.xml).
Frank: we may want to revisit the raw exporting draft and try to have
it adopted.
Mickey: right, I need to refresh the draft.
Frank: The YANG model draft may also be ready for adoption.