Skip to main content

In-situ OAM Direct Exporting
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-04-08
07 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Duke, Frank Brockners, Tal Mizrahi, Zhenbin Li, Shwetha Bhandari, Tianran Zhou, Barak Gafni, Haoyu Song, Ramesh Sivakolundu (IESG state changed)
2022-04-08
07 Martin Duke IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2022-03-01
07 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed)
2022-03-01
07 Martin Duke IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-03-01
07 Tommy Pauly
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard. This is appropriate given that this document defines an extension to the IOAM proposed standard. This is indicated on the header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document extends the IOAM protocol with a new option type for "direct exporting", which signals to measurement boxes that the related IOAM telemetry data should be collected and/or exported.

Working Group Summary:

This document was peeled out of the IOAM flags extension document, after discussion revealed that it needed more careful analysis to avoid various amplification attacks (or accidental amplification). The main work of the WG on this document over the past year has been to work on the security considerations to put bounds on the use of direct export. The WG did come to consensus after this review.

Document Quality:

The document does have input and implementation support from many vendors. One minor issue that the shepherd notes is that there are too many authors on the document, but the authors could not agree to remove anyone. This may be a concern for being able to get responses during AUTH48, etc.

Personnel:

Tommy Pauly is the document shepherd.
Martin Duke is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I've reviewed this document several times during its development, and I believe it is now ready to progress, based on WG consensus.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

We received a TSVART review, which were valuable. A SECDIR review was requested, but not completed. The WG did also spend a good amount of time reviewing the document in detail.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

The mechanism of exporting does need careful review to avoid amplification attacks.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The only concern the shepherd has is around the number of authors, as noted above.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, the authors confirmed that any appropriate IPR disclosures where filed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Three IPR statements were filed, representing two pieces of IPR, both from Huawei. The WG is aware of these and did not raise concerns.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG consensus is broad, with both the IOAM and other core participants reviewing and supporting the work.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

One nit found was regarding "RFC XXXX", as a placeholder in the IANA section that should reference this document. This seems fine.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

This document adds a value to the IOAM Type Registry, and establishes a IOAM DEX Flags and IOAM DEX Extension-Flags registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The document defines two registries, IOAM DEX Flags and IOAM DEX Extension-Flags. These require RFC publication, not expert review.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

Not applicable.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

No YANG module
2022-03-01
07 Tommy Pauly Responsible AD changed to Martin Duke
2022-03-01
07 Tommy Pauly IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2022-03-01
07 Tommy Pauly IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-03-01
07 Tommy Pauly IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-03-01
07 Tommy Pauly
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard. This is appropriate given that this document defines an extension to the IOAM proposed standard. This is indicated on the header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document extends the IOAM protocol with a new option type for "direct exporting", which signals to measurement boxes that the related IOAM telemetry data should be collected and/or exported.

Working Group Summary:

This document was peeled out of the IOAM flags extension document, after discussion revealed that it needed more careful analysis to avoid various amplification attacks (or accidental amplification). The main work of the WG on this document over the past year has been to work on the security considerations to put bounds on the use of direct export. The WG did come to consensus after this review.

Document Quality:

The document does have input and implementation support from many vendors. One minor issue that the shepherd notes is that there are too many authors on the document, but the authors could not agree to remove anyone. This may be a concern for being able to get responses during AUTH48, etc.

Personnel:

Tommy Pauly is the document shepherd.
Martin Duke is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I've reviewed this document several times during its development, and I believe it is now ready to progress, based on WG consensus.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

We received a TSVART review, which were valuable. A SECDIR review was requested, but not completed. The WG did also spend a good amount of time reviewing the document in detail.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

The mechanism of exporting does need careful review to avoid amplification attacks.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The only concern the shepherd has is around the number of authors, as noted above.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, the authors confirmed that any appropriate IPR disclosures where filed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Three IPR statements were filed, representing two pieces of IPR, both from Huawei. The WG is aware of these and did not raise concerns.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG consensus is broad, with both the IOAM and other core participants reviewing and supporting the work.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

One nit found was regarding "RFC XXXX", as a placeholder in the IANA section that should reference this document. This seems fine.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

This document adds a value to the IOAM Type Registry, and establishes a IOAM DEX Flags and IOAM DEX Extension-Flags registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The document defines two registries, IOAM DEX Flags and IOAM DEX Extension-Flags. These require RFC publication, not expert review.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

Not applicable.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

No YANG module
2022-03-01
07 Tommy Pauly Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-03-01
07 Tommy Pauly Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2022-03-01
07 Tommy Pauly Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2022-01-03
Tina Dang Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export
2021-12-15
07 Tommy Pauly Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2021-12-15
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export
2021-10-13
07 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-07.txt
2021-10-13
07 (System) New version approved
2021-10-13
07 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni <gbarak@nvidia.com>, Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni <gbarak@nvidia.com>, Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu <sramesh@cisco.com>, Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
2021-10-13
07 Tal Mizrahi Uploaded new revision
2021-10-12
06 Tommy Pauly Notification list changed to tpauly@apple.com because the document shepherd was set
2021-10-12
06 Tommy Pauly Document shepherd changed to Tommy Pauly
2021-10-08
06 Tommy Pauly Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2021-10-08
06 Tommy Pauly IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2021-09-03
06 Colin Perkins Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Colin Perkins. Sent review to list.
2021-09-02
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Farrell
2021-09-02
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Farrell
2021-08-31
06 Magnus Westerlund Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Colin Perkins
2021-08-31
06 Magnus Westerlund Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Colin Perkins
2021-08-30
06 Tommy Pauly IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-08-30
06 Tommy Pauly Requested Early review by TSVART
2021-08-30
06 Tommy Pauly Requested Early review by SECDIR
2021-08-08
06 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-06.txt
2021-08-08
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tal Mizrahi)
2021-08-08
06 Tal Mizrahi Uploaded new revision
2021-07-12
05 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-05.txt
2021-07-12
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tal Mizrahi)
2021-07-12
05 Tal Mizrahi Uploaded new revision
2021-07-01
04 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-04.txt
2021-07-01
04 (System) New version approved
2021-07-01
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni <gbarak@nvidia.com>, Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@huawei.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni <gbarak@nvidia.com>, Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@huawei.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu <sramesh@cisco.com>, Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
2021-07-01
04 Tal Mizrahi Uploaded new revision
2021-05-11
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export
2021-02-17
03 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-03.txt
2021-02-17
03 (System) New version approved
2021-02-17
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni <gbarak@mellanox.com>, Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@huawei.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni <gbarak@mellanox.com>, Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@huawei.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu <sramesh@cisco.com>, Shwetha Bhandari <shwethab@cisco.com>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org
2021-02-17
03 Tal Mizrahi Uploaded new revision
2020-11-01
02 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-02.txt
2020-11-01
02 (System) New version approved
2020-11-01
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu <sramesh@cisco.com>, Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, Tal Mizrahi …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu <sramesh@cisco.com>, Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, Barak Gafni <gbarak@mellanox.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@huawei.com>, Shwetha Bhandari <shwethab@cisco.com>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
2020-11-01
02 Tal Mizrahi Uploaded new revision
2020-08-05
01 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-01.txt
2020-08-05
01 (System) New version approved
2020-08-05
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, Barak Gafni <gbarak@mellanox.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, Barak Gafni <gbarak@mellanox.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu <sramesh@cisco.com>, Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, Shwetha Bhandari <shwethab@cisco.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@huawei.com>
2020-08-05
01 Tal Mizrahi Uploaded new revision
2020-02-06
00 (System) This document now replaces draft-ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export instead of None
2020-02-06
00 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-00.txt
2020-02-06
00 (System) New version approved
2020-02-06
00 Tal Mizrahi
Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, Barak Gafni <gbarak@mellanox.com>, Haoyu …
Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Frank Brockners <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, Barak Gafni <gbarak@mellanox.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@huawei.com>, Shwetha Bhandari <shwethab@cisco.com>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, Ramesh Sivakolundu <sramesh@cisco.com>
2020-02-06
00 Tal Mizrahi Uploaded new revision