[Bier] Comments about Overlay OAM Drafts

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

Dear OOAM Authors,

I have read the two OOAM drafts, and I have some comments. Please see below.


Comments about draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-00

A general question about the draft: does the draft define requirements for operators, requirements for vendors, or requirements for IETF working groups? These are three significantly different scopes, and reading the document I was not able to assess who the requirements are intended for.

Other comments:

1.       Section 3: The term 'UCMP' is defined in Section 3, but not used in the document.

2.       The following terms are used in the draft without having been defined:

-          'OAM session'

-          'node'

-          'centralized controller'

-          'FM'

3.       Section 4.1.1: 'Reverse Defect Indication (RDI)' ==> RDI usually stands for Remote Defect Indication.

4.       Section 4.1.2: "Overlay OAM MAY support verification of the mapping between its data plane state and client layer services" - please clarify further.

5.       Section 4.2: the terms 'active' and 'passive' have not been defined in the current draft (you may want to cite RFC 7799).
Specifically, this clarification is necessary since the term 'passive' according to RFC 7799 is slightly different than the term 'passive' in draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-00.

6.       Section 6 - certainly the OAM requirements have security implications. For example, OAM protocols may be subject to DoS attacks and to network recon. Some of these considerations are discussed in RFC 7276.


Comments about draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis-01


1.       I believe having an OAM gap analysis draft is a good idea.

2.       The current draft is still very preliminary, and some of the sections are still empty.

3.       Section 1: The introduction of the document goes way beyond the scope of the title (Gap Analysis). The intro actually defines the baseline of an Overlay OAM solution. Either this part should be removed from the document, or the scope of the document should be redefined.

4.       Section 3.3: this section is unclear, and should probably be rephrased.
The section discusses both in-band telemetry and passive monitoring, and it is not clear whether the two are related or not.

5.       Section 5: it looks like this text was copied from another draft, and is not applicable to this document.


Cheers,
Tal.