[ippm] Protocol Action: 'Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Tue, 22 November 2022 18:33 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <166914200973.5278.4213919981011981300@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 10:33:29 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/PfF_SHRqazdgFPAhn49Ca_d6W7w>
Subject: [ippm] Protocol Action: 'Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities'
  (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the IP Performance Measurement Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Zaheduzzaman Sarker and Martin Duke.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state/





Technical Summary

   This document describes an extension to the echo request/reply
   mechanisms used in IPv6 (including Segment Routing with IPv6 data
   plane (SRv6)), MPLS (including Segment Routing with MPLS data plane
   (SR-MPLS)), Service Function Chain (SFC) and Bit Index Explicit
   Replication (BIER) environments, which can be used within the In situ
   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) domain, allowing
   the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities
   of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   The WG consensus represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
   others being silent.

Personnel

   The shepherd is Marcus Ihlar. The responsible AD is Martin Duke.

[ippm] Protocol Action: 'Echo Request/Reply for E… The IESG