IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-08

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Thu, 20 October 2022 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37193C14EB1C for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PU_JRx9wqdlp for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5CB2C14CE39 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4MtBrr71fMz688yr for <detnet@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 10:49:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemi100009.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.242) by fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 04:50:38 +0200
Received: from kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.199) by kwepemi100009.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 10:50:36 +0800
Received: from kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.199]) by kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.199]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.031; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 10:50:36 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-08
Thread-Index: Adjddz+0sqo8FA9DQO+bSBcDx8ggEQBO554QAV7s6QA=
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 02:50:36 +0000
Message-ID: <498199055f9840c4a741dc2c3ee12138@huawei.com>
References: <AS8PR07MB8298C35F4BFC3B9BF74227C4F2239@AS8PR07MB8298.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <d482aeccbf074657aa3079e144816aaf@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <d482aeccbf074657aa3079e144816aaf@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.41.84]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_498199055f9840c4a741dc2c3ee12138huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/DUMJu-8qY0OIrz7kyvCdjgu9fBU>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-08
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 02:50:46 -0000

I do not see any response to my comments.
Reasonable? Or not?

Best,
Tianran

From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 11:38 AM
To: Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; detnet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-08

Hi Authors,

I read this draft and find it's useful.
I have several suggestions as follows.
1. I am not clear why existing PW OAM cannot be used directly for DetNet. I think there will be text to describe why 4 bytes are added, and also why each field, like node id.
2. There is no description for Level,  Flags, and Session fields on the meaning. I do not know how to use and how to extend.
3. "Channel Type - contains the value of DetNet Associated Channel Type." This is confusing to me at first sight. It seem you are going to define a new channel type. I struggled a while before I understand finally. So it would be nice to revise the text.
4. You mentioned hybrid OAM a little bit in section 4. IMHO, it has nothing to do with this draft, including the solution, the format. So, I would suggest to clean up the hybrid OAM texts in this doc.

Best,
Tianran

From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Janos Farkas
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 10:23 PM
To: detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
Subject: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-08

All,

This starts working group last call on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam/

The working group last call ends on October 25th.
Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.

No IPR has been disclosed against this document.

Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
This is useful and important, even from authors.

Thank you,
János (DetNet Co-Chair & doc Shepherd)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email