Re: [6lo] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc-05

Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> Fri, 05 March 2021 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB98C3A20C5; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 00:04:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VRrBKhXEYY-9; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 00:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x12a.google.com (mail-il1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13C623A1AFE; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 00:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id v14so1149416ilj.11; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:04:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WtJG7VmpyCmngI1PBVOWin6m+qEiH70n5CnUlQAyCZQ=; b=YPstUgvOsaNNyoK+xOhKXamZA8oTtklSt4afoe/d4x+I3nna9nwfhmA9cRalwEWxhG ctZ9NZ0baXi49rs3zxLLAd+4rMORrkMoDb6g/Kmw61UNLbAZhJU3ulr4v9U71ei/SNsC 4q24+Tc94Hg1fHCNgJINzLsf06dm6K13P+00gLpC1sRewxKIvTcevLjcBoNf3XwciR1C HS1OB5/cn0xNz+gQUwFlvx6EYMyS7DolEqOYAwCPwAifkUWLf6ihTM4jw7jqgYgR+zP/ lNSg5a+WBGHmHsWDMCiWBJmlTmvHfGQGuPWpl8YxHotXzOMpU5FH6pT/T+QWT2NrZH/p lT5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WtJG7VmpyCmngI1PBVOWin6m+qEiH70n5CnUlQAyCZQ=; b=DfcNPX1tYP+W3pCFIwlvyO6NrQ9vsJfTCLz4kTX3wQRKly7DFYpi9+mV6UF5nd6pgD ZvOpz+w9VrYafgQj2O8btq1rPmz3Ifvn5AG6uP+ztHkSWlSTY/uDWHfS+OeswVhtjfDM edBxfnV2y/rK5iAoM10QCKEEn1cz1KaYVECGcax3Dvy0DTfd+3VgbkDngbYyuhaizAvF a4SEBt6BicqMSGjLxEL99BEcG2Q6/H6sMNP/Zr4r1JqoNidgas14jcIpJ1p9hZKPJ6cW jzNcLGR3MJgem4LnRWqmgurx7nw1TPpBCHuGiOEb1JI34SW6PS0881BeZUBgEz1gfei9 cnZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533MIPjGze6kayJOkcC3HSRlof+5i+hSetb5WZeJ2c4DMfgKbOeR YlBxwGpR2y4kdlM8i5O/BOrdm3Q3S8PKglGTbKk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxksH4VoECtMvH66f1zR5VJWGsRV1RVYQhuoGtEo4Xsi9dk581W6PCOMuP13tXWAuVot0pHbmLX2l8Pn45rSHo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:164c:: with SMTP id v12mr7517492ilu.49.1614931449581; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:04:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E014F4FD8@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E014F4FD8@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 10:03:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFgnS4X5PYHqYPhX7xOgbb90djKtjfu3_Ps6-tj_ASFVTLM0og@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6lo-plc.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-plc.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000063953505bcc587da"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/LyPNpVEpxAY5bQc2WXwNJH9LWZI>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc-05
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 08:04:16 -0000

Hi Remy,

Thank you for your response and for addressing my concerns. This makes
sense to me. It would be good to catch this in a short section or
subsection of the document ('Operations and Manageability Considerations'
is a possible title).

Regards,

Dan


On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:53 AM Liubing (Remy) <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
wrote:

> Hello Dan,
>
> Thank you very much for your comments. Please see my response below.
>
> Best regards,
> Remy
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> 发送时间: 2021年2月12日 18:01
> 收件人: ops-dir@ietf.org
> 抄送: 6lo@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6lo-plc.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org;
> dromasca@gmail.com
> 主题: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc-05
>
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> This document describes how IPv6 packets are transported over constrained
> Power Line Communication (PLC) networks. It is a clear and well-written
> document and its content is relevant for all operators that will have such
> networks under their administration. I have however one concern that I
> would suggest the OPS AD to clarify before approving this document. There
> is no mention in the document of the operational and manageability aspects.
> How will these networks be managed, monitored, troubleshooted?  Which
> existing OAM protocols and procedures apply and will extensions be needed?
> Are there / will there be any new new interface types ("ifType" values)
> required as per RFC 8892? Maybe other documents exist in the IEEE or ITU-T
> that document these aspects - if so it would be useful to reference them.
> If other documents are in planning in the IETF on this respect - please
> clarify.
>
> [Remy]That's a very good question. The constrained PLC networks are not
> managed in the same way as the enterprise network or carrier network. The
> constrained PLC networks as the other IoT networks, are designed to be
> self-organized and self-managed. The software or firmware is flushed into
> the devices before deployment by the vendor or operator. And during the
> deployment process, no extra configuration is needed to get the device
> connected to each other. Once a device becomes offline, it will go back to
> the bootstrapping stage and tries to rejoin the network. The onboard status
> of the devices and the topology of the PLC network can be visualized via
> the gateway. The recently-formed iotops WG in IETF is aming to design more
> features for  the management of IOT networks.
>