[Detnet] AD Review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-09

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

I performed an AD Review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-09 and will be taking over as the responsible AD on this document to help load-balance work in RTG.  Thanks for this document.  My feedback is as follows.

** Section 3.1
When the UDP destination port number used by the OAM
   protocol is one of the assigned by IANA, then the UDP source port can
   be used to achieve co-routedness of OAM,

Typo? What is “co-routedness”?  

** Section 3.1
   That correlation between the particular IP OAM
   protocol session and the monitored IP DetNet flow can be achieved
   using the DetNet YANG model [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang].

Is this correlation possible by processing the provisioning information codified in the YANG?  Is not such a correlation possible by processing _any_ provisioning information regardless of the data representation?  I’m wondering if this isn’t as simple as “That correlation between the particular IP OAM session and the monitored IP DetNet flow can be achieved by using DetNet provisioning information (e.g., [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]).

** Section 3.2.  Typo.  s/IP active OAM/active IP OAM/?

** Section 3.2. 
The amount of operational work mapping IP
   OAM protocols to the monitored DetNet flow can be reduced by using an
   IP/UDP tunnel to carry IP test packets.  Then, to ensure that OAM
   packets traverse the same set of nodes and links, the IP/UDP tunnel
   must be mapped to the monitored DetNet flow.

-- Using “IP/UDP” tunnel is referenced without citation.

-- Isn’t this suggesting the opposite of what is said in other places – that the measurement and the DetNet packet need to get the same treatment/path?

** Section 3.2
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof] describes how DetNet with MPLS
   over UDP/IP data plane [RFC9025] can be used to support Packet
   Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions to potentially lower
   packet loss, improve the probability of on-time packet delivery and
   ensure in-order packet delivery in IP DetNet's service sub-layer.

-- I don’t understand the link to this PREOF draft and OAM.  What am I missing?

-- I didn’t see a formal treatment of these topics in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof].

** Section 6.
   This document describes the applicability of the existing Fault
   Management and Performance Monitoring IP OAM protocols, and does not
   raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones common to
   networking or already documented for the referenced DetNet and OAM
   protocols.

Please provide references to these key DetNet and OAM-related document covering the relevant security considerations.

Thanks,
Roman