Re: [Detnet] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-10: (with COMMENT)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,
thank you for the discussion that helped improve the document. I've
uploaded -15 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam/>
version
that includes all updates that address your DISCUSS and comments.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:54 AM Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg!
>
>
>
> Thanks for the quick follow-up.  This new text looks good to me.
>
>
>
> Roman
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 3, 2024 6:40 PM
> *To:* Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-10: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> *Warning:* External Sender - do not click links or open attachments
> unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hi Roman,
>
> thank you for your comments helping to improve the document. Please find
> my notes below tagged by GIM>>.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 1:04 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-10: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ** Section 2.
>    Many legacy OAM tools can be used in DetNet networks, but they are
>    not able to cover all the aspects of deterministic networking.
>
> What is a legacy tool?
>
> GIM>> Yes, it is awkward. I propose the following re-wording of the
> paragraph:
>
> OLD TEXT:
>
>    Many legacy OAM tools can be used in DetNet networks, but they are
>
>    not able to cover all the aspects of deterministic networking.
>
>    Fulfilling strict guarantees is essential for DetNet flows, resulting
>
>    in new DetNet-specific functionalities that must be covered with OAM.
>
>    Filling these gaps is inevitable and needs accurate consideration of
>
>    DetNet specifics.  Similar to DetNet flows themselves, their OAM
>
>    needs careful end-to-end engineering as well.
>
> NEW TEXT:
>
>    Most of the existing OAM tools can be used in DetNet networks, but
>
>    they can only cover some aspects of deterministic networking.
>
>    Fulfilling strict guarantees is essential for DetNet flows, resulting
>
>    in new DetNet-specific functionalities that must be covered with OAM.
>
>    Filling these gaps is inevitable and needs accurate consideration of
>
>    DetNet specifics.  Similar to DetNet flows, their OAM also needs
>
>    careful end-to-end engineering.
>
>
> ** Section 2.
>
>    For example, appropriate placing of MEPs along the path of a DetNet
>    flow is not always a trivial task and may require proper design,
>    together with the design of the service component of a given DetNet
>    flow.
>
> Agreed.  However, it seems me to that there is a missing sentence
> explicitly
> linking OAM to placing these MEPs.
>
> GIM>> I see the process of placing MEPs, i.e., configuring MEPs on a
> particular interfaces of a DetNet node, being a part of the overall process
> of OAM configuration that includes the configuration of OAM protocols. Is
> that the linking that you suggest to clarify in the text?
>
>
> ** Section 8.  This section seems to be missing mentioned that OAM
> mechanism
> could be tampered with depending on their construction and that some OAM
> tools
> are dual-use potentially enabling reconnaissance by an attacker.  These and
> other topics are covered in the Security Considerations of RFC7276.
>
> GIM>> Thank you the reference, added the following sentence:
>
> NEW TEXT:
>
>    Furthermore, the analysis of OAM security concerns in
>
>    Section 6 of [RFC7276] also applies to DetNet OAM, including the use
>
>    of OAM for network reconnaissance.
>
>
> ** Section 9.  The GENART reviewer (Mallory Knodel) also notes that OAM
> mechanism can be used as the further basis of reconnaissance by
> fingerprinting
> their features.
>
> GIM>> Would the new sentence in Section 8 be sufficient to cover that
> concern?
>