Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2022-07-01
Requested 2022-06-17
Authors Shwetha Bhandari , Frank Brockners
I-D last updated 2022-07-13
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tianran Zhou
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 12)
Result Has issues
Completed 2022-07-13
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

It is good to describe the deployment consideration in section 5. However, I
think there is an issue that the increamental tracing option will impact other
IPv6 extension header processing, e.g. SRH. This is similar to the
consideration about PMTU, which has many ways to detect. But it is different.
The increamental option is encapsulated in HbH which is the first EH. As the
option length expands, the intermedate node may not be able to process other
EHs. Typically, SRH is used for TE. This will break the network service.