Re: [Bier] Comments about Overlay OAM Drafts

Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> Sun, 26 June 2016 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <talmi@marvell.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E3112B024; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 x4NNS4-2xPq5; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.148.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E71EE12B00B; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0045849.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u5QEGdjb003969; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:20:11 -0700
Received: from il-exch01.marvell.com ([199.203.130.101]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 23sqak3a3c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:20:11 -0700
Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:20:08 +0300
Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::41:1c9f:8611:3a4a]) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::41:1c9f:8611:3a4a%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:20:08 +0300
From: Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com>
To: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <naikumar@cisco.com>, "draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement@tools.ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments about Overlay OAM Drafts
Thread-Index: AdHPgQ8L7yui3SQ6S8i+8JhXelTIiwAPKBqAAAIJKnA=
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 14:20:07 +0000
Message-ID: <48da4f66881d4accb182513b39744fc1@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com>
References: <7e12c3e474924b04b133da754e2f9cf8@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> <D3955BC6.165106%naikumar@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3955BC6.165106%naikumar@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.4.102.210]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-26_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1604210000 definitions=main-1606260159
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/qUaJ18SACEEa_VHLFykq9pcoX9M>
Cc: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Comments about Overlay OAM Drafts
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 14:20:15 -0000

Dear Nagendra,

>The comments seems to be missing in the mail. Can you please share the
>same?.

Strange... The comments seem to be visible in the mail archive (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/EPxJQcw9lOAIHV2HkRwNE6GVxAU).

Nevertheless, here goes again:


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.



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) [mailto:naikumar@cisco.com]
>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 5:16 PM
>To: Tal Mizrahi; draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org; draft-
>ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement@tools.ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
>Cc: bier@ietf.org; sfc@ietf.org; nvo3@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Comments about Overlay OAM Drafts
>
>Hi Tal,
>
>The comments seems to be missing in the mail. Can you please share the
>same?.
>
>Thanks,
>Nagendra
>
>On 6/26/16, 4:12 AM, "Tal Mizrahi" <talmi@marvell.com> wrote:
>
>>Dear OOAM Authors,
>>
>>I have read the two OOAM drafts, and I have some comments. Please see
>>below