Hi Adrian, Thank you very much for the review and editing! We'll update the draft to reflect the latest thoughts. I agree with you that the IPv4 extension is unlikely to happen so we'll remove that part in the new revision.
Best regards, Haoyu -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 7:55 AM To: draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: A review of draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-16 Hi, I reviewed -09 of this draft at the time of the inconclusive adoption poll back in December 2019. A lot of changes have been made since then, including updates for my previous comments. As the document appears to be somewhat stalled, I asked the chairs what they thought the status was, and they said that the work is not shut down, but they noted that the mailing list has been very quiet on the subject. This is possibly because we're all waiting to find out what happens next. Anyway, as a way of showing my continued interest in this document, I have reviewed the current revision (-16). I hope these comments prove useful to the authors. I have shown my edits and comments in line with the document, attached. While there are a lot of comments, I don't think any of these couldn't have been worked on for a working group draft. But let's continue the work with this draft and get it into a better shape. One comment here rather than in the document: You talk about adding in-situ OAM to IPv4 encapsulations. I can, of course, see the benefit of this for operators carrying IPv4 traffic. But I wonder how that runs into the IETF's policy with regard to extending IPv4. Certainly your reference to draft-herbert-ipv4-eh is a bit dubious given how that work appears to have been abandoned. Of course, encapsulations under the IPv4 header are a totally different thing. Best, Adrian _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
