Re: [Bier] AD review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-08

Hi Greg,

Thanks - I went looking at the work in IPPM and not at the drafts in BIER.
>From a quick glance, draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam does seem like a better
reference.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Alia,
> thank you for raising the question of proper reference in regard to use of
> the OAM field. It is very good to have an opportunity to update BIER WG on
> work related to use of the Alternate Marking method in SFC and NVO3. But
> first my thought about the reference. We have Performance Measurement
> with Marking Method in BIER Layer
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam/> where use of
> the OAM field is discussed. Perhaps this BIER WG draft could be used as
> reference in draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation in place of
> draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework.
> And short update with a proposal to change naming. There two drafts that
> discuss applicability of the Alternate Marking method (AMM) in SFC and
> NVO3. Working on them we've realized that 'Mark' as name of the field to be
> used for AMM is more informative than 'OAM'. Hence the proposal to change
> the name of OAM field into Mark field.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As is customary, I have done my AD review of
>> draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-08.  First, I would like to thank the
>> authors & editors, Ice, Eric, Andrew, Jeff, Sam, and Israel, as well as the
>> WG for this solid document.
>>
>> I do have a couple major issues that need to be resolved ASAP so I can
>> get this document into IETF Last Call and scheduled for the telechat on Oct
>> 26.
>>
>> Major:
>>
>> 1) First, this draft references draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-06
>> for the only description of how the OAM bits are used.  I think, based on a
>> very quick scan, that perhaps
>> draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10 would work as well - but even that is
>> Experimental so would be a downref when this goes Standards Track.   What
>> might be useful to say in this draft is:
>>
>> "'Specifying the values of the OAM bits or interpreting them is not done
>> by the BIER forwarding layer. Instead, an OAM layer can specify the value
>> to be used by a BFIR and process the received OAM values at a BFER.   The
>> OAM bits MAY be set to any value by a BFIR; the OAM bits SHOULD NOT be
>> modified by BFRs as part of normal processing, unless instructed to by an
>> OAM process. The BFERs SHOULD provide a mechanism for reporting at least
>> the number of packets received in a row with each value.  One example of
>> how such OAM bits can be used by different OAM processing is described in
>> [draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark]."
>>
>> I'm sure it can be wordsmithed better.  The key points are to define
>> where the OAM bits can be set, where they can be modified, and that packets
>> counts based on the values should be provided in some fashion.  Then the
>> reference to what the OAM layer does can be informative.  Regardless of the
>> reference type, this type of normative language is needed.
>>
>> 2) In Sec 2.2.3, it says: "Rather, a new ethertype would have to be
>> assigned and
>>    used.  Specification of the layer 2 codepoints to be used for the
>>    non-MPLS BIER encapsulation is outside the scope of this document."
>>
>> I thought that this document is asking for a standard EtherType for the
>> non-MPLS BIER encapsulation??  Certainly, I need text like that to request
>> the allocation from IEEE.
>> Please be clear that this document is asking for an IEEE Ethertype to be
>> allocated,
>> if that is, as I understood, the WG's intent.
>>
>> Nit:
>> a) Sec 3 bullet 6a:  s/BFIR's BFIR-id/BFIR's BFR-id
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alia
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BIER mailing list
>> BIER@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>>
>>
>