In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-11

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Stephen Farrell for the SECDIR review.

Thank for you for resolving my DISCUSS feedback with the new text in Section 6.

[Ballot comment]
Discuss cleared.

Previous, non-blocking comments:

1.
  This draft has evolved from combining some of the concepts of PBT-I
  from [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] with immediate
  exporting from [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags].

I'm not sure that this paragraph is really helpful now, and could probably be deleted - you could use the datatracker to indicate the document history and which previous drafts this document replaces.

2.
  N >> M

I'm assuming that by ">>", this means much greater than?  It would be better use words here, or at least define what this means (e.g., as opposed to a bit-shift).

3.
  An IOAM node
  MAY maintain a counter or a set of counters that count the events in
  which the IOAM node receives a packet with the DEX Option-Type and
  does not collect and/or export data due to the rate limits.

Given that this is a MAY, I wasn't sure that this really specifies anything, I guess that it is just offering a suggestion.

4.
  Exported packets SHOULD NOT be exported over a path or a tunnel that
  is subject to IOAM direct exporting.  Furthermore, IOAM encapsulating
  nodes that can identify a packet as an IOAM exported packet MUST NOT
  push a DEX Option-Type into such a packet.  This requirement is
  intended to prevent nested exporting and/or exporting loops.
 
It was unclear to me how that that SHOULD NOT can really be enforced, if the exported packets are allowed to leave the limited domain.  Perhaps the "SHOULD NOT" should be limited to the domain where IOAM is operating?


5.
  transit or decapsulating IOAM node that receives an unknown IOAM-
  Option-Type ignores it (as defined in [RFC9197]), and specifically
  nodes that do not support the DEX Option-Type ignore it.  Note that
  as per [RFC9197] a decapsulating node removes the IOAM encapsulation
  and all its IOAM-Option-Types, and specifically in the case where one
  of these options is a (possibly unknown) DEX Option-Type.  The
  ability to skip over a (possibly unknown) DEX Option-Type in the
  parsing or in the decapsulation procedure is dependent on the
  specific encapsulation, which is outside the scope of this document.
  For example, when IOAM is encapsulated in IPv6

I found the sentence from "Note that ..." to be somewhat unclear.

6. Option-Type Format

Would it be more helpful to explicitly specify what the length is.  I.e., X bytes + 4 * number of set bits in the Extension-Flags?

7. Extension-Flags

More a question for my own knowledge:  I presume that the length calculation (i.e., checking for the count of set bits) can be performed efficiently?  I.e., if calculating the length is important on any fast path.

8. subject to birthday problem conflicts, while centralized

Would it be helpful to spell out what is meant by "birthday problem conflicts", or perhaps include an informative reference to the wiki page?


Nits:
N>100 => N > 100

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for resolving my DISCUSS point.

Thank you to the Working Group for tackling the issue of the author count.  I know those conversations can be quite un-fun.

I concur with John that the references to RFCs 7014 and 5475 should be informative.

Section 4.1 needs a bit of work.  It claims that Section 7.2 of RFC9197 created to the "IOAM Type Registry", but it's actually the "IOAM Trace-Type Registry", yet you appear to want to register stuff in the "IOAM Option-Type Registry" which would be Section 7.1 of RFC 9197.  Please clarify.  Also, both of those registries require that the "Reference" column be specified explicitly, even though it's fairly obvious what it's going to be.

[Ballot discuss]
Hi,

I had a couple of minor discuss comments to clarify a couple of points that seemed unclear:

1) Definition of Sequence Number:

  Sequence Number An optional 32-bit sequence number starting from 0
                  and increasing by 1 for each following monitored
                  packet from the same flow at the encapsulating node.
                  The Sequence Number, when combined with the Flow ID,
                  provides a convenient approach to correlate the
                  exported data from the same user packet.

Please can you clarify.  Is this every packet in the flow (presumably not)?  Does monitored packet means just those with the DEX option?  Could it include other packets

2. Optional field ordering.
  Optional fields The optional fields, if present, reside after the
                  Reserved field.  The order of the optional fields is
                  according to the respective bits that are enabled in
                  the Extension-Flags field.  Each optional field is 4
                  octets long.

Please can clarify that the order is from most significant bit to least significant bit of the option field.

3. Allocation is based on the "RFC
  Required" procedure, as defined in [RFC8126].

Given the number of extensions is so limited, is RFC required (e.g. allows ISE) really a strict enough allocation policy?

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Here are my non-blocking comments:

1.
  This draft has evolved from combining some of the concepts of PBT-I
  from [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] with immediate
  exporting from [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags].

I'm not sure that this paragraph is really helpful now, and could probably be deleted - you could use the datatracker to indicate the document history and which previous drafts this document replaces.

2.
  N >> M

I'm assuming that by ">>", this means much greater than?  It would be better use words here, or at least define what this means (e.g., as opposed to a bit-shift).

3.
  An IOAM node
  MAY maintain a counter or a set of counters that count the events in
  which the IOAM node receives a packet with the DEX Option-Type and
  does not collect and/or export data due to the rate limits.

Given that this is a MAY, I wasn't sure that this really specifies anything, I guess that it is just offering a suggestion.

4.
  Exported packets SHOULD NOT be exported over a path or a tunnel that
  is subject to IOAM direct exporting.  Furthermore, IOAM encapsulating
  nodes that can identify a packet as an IOAM exported packet MUST NOT
  push a DEX Option-Type into such a packet.  This requirement is
  intended to prevent nested exporting and/or exporting loops.
 
It was unclear to me how that that SHOULD NOT can really be enforced, if the exported packets are allowed to leave the limited domain.  Perhaps the "SHOULD NOT" should be limited to the domain where IOAM is operating?


5.
  transit or decapsulating IOAM node that receives an unknown IOAM-
  Option-Type ignores it (as defined in [RFC9197]), and specifically
  nodes that do not support the DEX Option-Type ignore it.  Note that
  as per [RFC9197] a decapsulating node removes the IOAM encapsulation
  and all its IOAM-Option-Types, and specifically in the case where one
  of these options is a (possibly unknown) DEX Option-Type.  The
  ability to skip over a (possibly unknown) DEX Option-Type in the
  parsing or in the decapsulation procedure is dependent on the
  specific encapsulation, which is outside the scope of this document.
  For example, when IOAM is encapsulated in IPv6

I found the sentence from "Note that ..." to be somewhat unclear.

6. Option-Type Format

Would it be more helpful to explicitly specify what the length is.  I.e., X bytes + 4 * number of set bits in the Extension-Flags?

7. Extension-Flags

More a question for my own knowledge:  I presume that the length calculation (i.e., checking for the count of set bits) can be performed efficiently?  I.e., if calculating the length is important on any fast path.

8. subject to birthday problem conflicts, while centralized

Would it be helpful to spell out what is meant by "birthday problem conflicts", or perhaps include an informative reference to the wiki page?


Nits:
N>100 => N > 100

[Ballot discuss]
In Section 3.2, there's this field definition:

  Reserved        This field SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.

I'm worried about interoperability here.  "SHOULD" allows a choice.  As written, I would be within the protocol if I decided to interpret this field, even if the other participants put junk here.  Wouldn't it be better to say this is a "MUST", or require that it be all zero bits (at least in this version)?  If you really think this needs to be a "SHOULD", I suggest explaining the choice that's being made available to an implementer here.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to the Working Group for tackling the issue of the author count.  I know those conversations can be quite un-fun.

I concur with John that the references to RFCs 7014 and 5475 should be informative.

Section 4.1 needs a bit of work.  It claims that Section 7.2 of RFC9197 created to the "IOAM Type Registry", but it's actually the "IOAM Trace-Type Registry", yet you appear to want to register stuff in the "IOAM Option-Type Registry" which would be Section 7.1 of RFC 9197.  Please clarify.  Also, both of those registries require that the "Reference" column be specified explicitly, even though it's fairly obvious what it's going to be.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work on this document.

I wish to fully support Roman's discuss, as I believe the document needs to be explicit about not exporting outside of the IOAM domain

[Ballot comment]
I support Roman's DISCUSS.


Personal pet peeve: I strongly prefer +------+----+  over +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  as I find the latter too blinky and distracting from the actual diagram.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for working on this specification.

Thanks to Colin Perkins for his valuable TSVART review. I find the TSVART early reviewer's concern on rate limiting the exported traffic triggered by DEX Option-type as only protection mechanism (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/1WNgYWGJmxLd4f3RAiDk-LJ-S8Y/) very valid but haven't seen it addressed. In this discuss, I would like to bring back attention to that concern and would like to discuss why there should not be a circuit breaker kind of functionality required here?

I also think this specification should be explicit about not exporting IOAM data to any receiver outside of IOAM limited domain. Hence supporting Roman's discuss.

for example - The introduction section can state-

OLD text-

  A
  "receiving entity" in this context can be, for example, an external
  collector, analyzer, controller, decapsulating node, or a software
  module in one of the IOAM nodes.

New text-

  A
  "receiving entity" in this context can be, for example, an external
  collector, analyzer, controller, decapsulating node, or a software
  module in one of the IOAM nodes with in IOAM limited domain.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. My only comment is that I don’t see why the references to RFCs 7014 and 5475 are normative, they seem informative to me.

[Ballot discuss]
It isn’t clear whether DEX can be exported outside of the IOAM domain.  If it can, more is needed to describe the implications.  There are the following related statements:

(a) Section 3.1.2 says:
  Exported packets SHOULD NOT be exported over a path or a tunnel that
  is subject to IOAM direct exporting.

(b) Section 6 says:
  IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain,
  thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their affect.  This
  is a fundamental assumption with respect to the security aspects of
  IOAM, as further discussed in [RFC9197].
 
(c) Section 6 says:
  Although the exporting method is not within the scope of this
  document, any exporting method MUST secure the exported data from the
  IOAM node to the receiving entity.  Specifically, an IOAM node that
  performs DEX exporting MUST send the exported data to a pre-
  configured trusted receiving entity.  Furthermore, an IOAM node MUST
  gain explicit consent to export data to a receiving entity before
  starting to send exported data.

Statement (b) is the usual caveat that IOAM traffic stays inside the domain.  However, this new option type is something different – there are the packets themselves and the telemetry generated from them (i.e., the export packets).  Statement (c) is clear and helpful but doesn’t resolve if these entities are in the IOAM domain.  Statement (a) seems to mitigation for not creating loops but like (c) silent on clarifying whether in the IOAM domain.

If export can only happen in the IOAM domain, consider adding something as simple as the following in the Security Considerations:

NEW:
DEX exporting MUST NOT be to entities outside of the IOAM domain.

[Ballot comment]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-09
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Thanks to Bernie Volz for his internet directorate review at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-09-intdir-telechat-volz-2022-06-23/ (please consider Bernie's comments as mine).

Special thanks to Tommy Pauly for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus even if it lacks the justification of the intended status and uses an unusual templte.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### No export method specified

Just curious... why isn't IPFIX selected as the export method (or even a streaming telemetry)? The abstract says "The exporting method and format are outside the scope of this document."

### Repetition in section 3.1

The sentence "The DEX Option-Type is used as a trigger to collect and/or export IOAM data" appears multiple times in this document and looks quite repetitive.

### Section 3.1

s/MAY export and/or collect/MAY export and/or MAY collect/ ? (just to be clear)

### Section 3.1.1 mandatory sampling ?

The 1st paragraph contains a "MUST" rather than a "SHOULD" making sampling a mandatory feature. Isn't this too strong ? Especially when aggregation can be done locally ?

### Section 3.1.1

In `it is recommended to use N>100` should "RECOMMENDED" be used ?

### Section 6

Should network operators also drop packets containing the DEX at their peering points ?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the IOAM Option-Type registry on the In Situ OAM (IOAM) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ioam/

A new registration is to be made as follows:

Code Point: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: IOAM Direct Export (DEX) Option Type
Description: See section 3
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3 ]

Second, a new registry is to be created called the IOAM DEX Flags registry. The new registry will be located on the In Situ OAM (IOAM) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ioam/

The registry will be managed via RFC Required as defined in RFC8126. The registry contains 8 flag bits numbered 0 through 7. There are no initial registrations in the new registry.

Third, a new registry is to be created called the IOAM DEX Extension-Flags registry. The new registry will be located on the In Situ OAM (IOAM) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ioam/

The registry will be managed via RFC Required as defined in RFC 8126. The registry contains 8 flag bits numbered 0 through 7. The registry has initial registrations as follows:

Bit Description Reference
----+----------------------------------------------+-------------------
0 Flow ID [ RFC-to-be ]
1 Sequence Number [ RFC-to-be ]
2-7 Unassigned

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Michelle Thangtamsatid
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-06-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, tpauly@apple.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (In-situ OAM Direct Exporting) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Measurement WG (ippm)
to consider the following document: - 'In-situ OAM Direct Exporting'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-06-14. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is used
  for recording and collecting operational and telemetry information.
  Specifically, IOAM allows telemetry data to be pushed into data
  packets while they traverse the network.  This document introduces a
  new IOAM option type called the Direct Export (DEX) option, which is
  used as a trigger for IOAM data to be directly exported or locally
  aggregated without being pushed into in-flight data packets.  The
  exporting method and format are outside the scope of this document.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5329/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5378/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4861/

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

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

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni , Frank Brockners , Haoyu Song , Ramesh Sivakolundu , Shwetha Bhandari , Tal Mizrahi , Tianran Zhou , Zhenbin Li

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni , Frank Brockners , Haoyu Song , Ramesh Sivakolundu , Shwetha Bhandari , Tal Mizrahi , Tianran Zhou , Zhenbin Li

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni , Frank Brockners , Haoyu Song , Ramesh Sivakolundu , Shwetha Bhandari , Tal Mizrahi , Tianran Zhou , Zhenbin Li , ippm-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Frank Brockners , Ramesh Sivakolundu , Zhenbin Li , Tal Mizrahi , Barak Gafni , Haoyu Song , Shwetha Bhandari , Tianran Zhou

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhenbin Li , Tal Mizrahi , Barak Gafni , Ramesh Sivakolundu , Frank Brockners , Tianran Zhou , Shwetha Bhandari , Haoyu Song

Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Frank Brockners , Zhenbin Li , Barak Gafni , Haoyu Song , Shwetha Bhandari , Tal Mizrahi , Tianran Zhou , Ramesh Sivakolundu