Re: [Detnet] Comments on I-D Action: draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-01.txt

Fabrice Theoleyre <theoleyre@unistra.fr> Wed, 09 June 2021 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <theoleyre@unistra.fr>
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 3D1E73A14EE for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 05:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=unistra.fr
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 ZaiJxsPxu9d1 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 05:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout02-ext2.partage.renater.fr (smtpout02-ext2.partage.renater.fr [194.254.241.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A36E3A14EF for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 05:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmtaauth02.partage.renater.fr (zmtaauth02.partage.renater.fr [194.254.241.25]) by smtpout20.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3C4BFDF0; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:52:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zmtaauth02.partage.renater.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmtaauth02.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6951FA0755; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:52:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmtaauth02.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46178A0782; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:52:48 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zmtaauth02.partage.renater.fr 46178A0782
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=unistra.fr; s=CF279DD4-6F58-4C59-BB33-73FDC6DFC1E3; t=1623243168; bh=y2jkI+NIMs+rZAWRcn6cvFulSw+fw6NUWESGY6R77OA=; h=From:Message-Id:Mime-Version:Date:To; b=WzmgzPkA2/tfijfdiKTLxmeZbfvCNd/fw9KfMQQsRQw438kILcOjR8aDWBXJD8eIN sNAkbRa6fYiP8kGAGzxCJktBHo5oNOJzrOOP9D3ndjSUPt0RFLWIsYXhL0/9Q+i1BB UNmvTJP2CCnPC5cQC81lHWV0FmYAfa/EY1k68DjqtRy8BFVrg+Unj0evEPIYfMdwe1 tO9EKTWwGdAVN6JVNCEDTQmeUWtW9xgXGMYuUX7mgIyBsmXgrTcjjDd3LPxF0gbCXX vjyx2nsEP1ho3iXFtEvzw+tg0nLfdu7X44L1tHUwQbi5n17l3Q2EfWJqSKfkdFzJgZ XTFgRY/oxP+6Q==
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zmtaauth02.partage.renater.fr
Received: from zmtaauth02.partage.renater.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmtaauth02.partage.renater.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id SEzDYAS11s_7; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:52:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.203] (unknown [194.254.241.251]) by zmtaauth02.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D34D8A0755; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:52:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Fabrice Theoleyre <theoleyre@unistra.fr>
Message-Id: <7BEA5703-64A7-40B6-A510-73F8BB343273@unistra.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B846E4E2-FB8F-42A0-B04C-8E564A6DAF56"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:52:44 +0200
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB53479743A9F260FDA3D73261AC399@AM0PR07MB5347.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Bal=C3=A1zs_Varga_A?= <balazs.a.varga=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <AM0PR0702MB3603BAEF938F4C59539C059BAC299@AM0PR0702MB3603.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM0PR07MB53479743A9F260FDA3D73261AC399@AM0PR07MB5347.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamState: clean
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamScore: 0
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamCause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeduuddgheekucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecutffgpfetvffgtfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhkfgtggfuffgjvfhfofesrgdtmherhhdtjeenucfhrhhomhephfgrsghrihgtvgcuvfhhvgholhgvhihrvgcuoehthhgvohhlvgihrhgvsehunhhishhtrhgrrdhfrheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudefieeluddvtdefheelffevudeljefhgfehtdejvdffkedvfeetveetvdehuddtnecukfhppeduleegrddvheegrddvgedurddvhedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepudelgedrvdehgedrvdeguddrvdehuddphhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddrvddtfegnpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhephfgrsghrihgtvgcuvfhhvgholhgvhihrvgcuoehthhgvohhlvgihrhgvsehunhhishhtrhgrrdhfrheqpdhrtghpthhtohepsggrlhgriihsrdgrrdhvrghrghgrpeegtdgvrhhitghsshhonhdrtghomhesughmrghrtgdrihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepuggvthhnvghtsehivghtfhdrohhrgh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/RHkgicTkLLznTa6WGFAQtRuP1Tc>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Comments on I-D Action: draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-01.txt
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 12:53:00 -0000

Dear Balazs, 

After the call of Yesterday, please find inline the comments of our last modifications.

> TEXT
>   6.   DetNet OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods.  Such OAM
>        methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the
>        forward direction and out-of-bound notification in the reverse
>        direction, i.e., from egress to ingress end point of the OAM
>        test session.
>> Comment28> " egress to ingress end point" Are these the MEPs?

FT>> we have yesterday a quite long discussion on this problem (are MEP only the ingress/egress nodes?). In particular, PREOF may require to have nodes in charge of elimination / replication. Thus, We changed the assertion 1:
TEXT: "It MUST be possible to initiate DetNet OAM session from any  DetNet node towards another DetNet node(s) within given domain."

FT>> Balazs argued yesterday that the source and destination may be DetNet nodes. So, we insert a novel requirement
TEXT "It MAY be possible to initiate a direct DetNet OAM session from a  DetNet source towards a DetNet destination within given domain."

FT>> We also discussed the problem of bidirectional DetNet flows. 
FT>> We separated now the requirement for bidirectional vs. unidirectional flows. For unidirectional DetNet flows, the forward direction may be in-band, the inverse direction may be out-of-band.
TEXT: « OAM methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the forward direction and out-of-bound notification in the reverse direction, i.e., from egress to ingress end point of the OAM test session.»

FT>> For bidirectional DetNet flows, we MUST support two OAM unidirectional sessions 
TEXT: "DetNet OAM MUST support bidirectional DetNet flows, with a pair of OAM sessions, each of them in charge of one of the two directions. »

@all: Please tell us if it is compliant with what you have possibly in mind for uni/bidirectional DetNet flows.


> TEXT
>   13.  DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement
>        methods.  Calculated performance metrics MUST include but are
>        not limited to throughput, packet loss, delay and delay
>        variation metrics.  [RFC6374] provides detailed information on
>        performance measurement and performance metrics.
>> Comment30> How is this point related to requirement 6.5 (also mentioning PM)?
>> Comment31> To be discussed whether adding "out-of-order" characteristics as well here.

FT>> good suggestion, inserted in the list.

> TEXT
>   15.  DetNet OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of the
>        DetNet domain.  These recovery methods MAY use protection
>        switching and restoration.
>> Comment32> " survivability" term not used in DetNet so far. How it is related to DetNet sub-layers? Is it a forwarding sub-layer functionality?

FT>> We replaced it by availability to be compliant with RAW.

> TEXT
>   16.  DetNet OAM MUST support the discovery of Packet Replication,
>        Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions locations in
>        the domain.
>   17.  DetNet OAM MUST support testing of Packet Replication,
>        Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions in the domain.
>> Comment33> "Order" --> "Ordering"
>> Comment34>  "sub-functions" --> "functions". These are functions not sub-functions.

FT>> Greg seems have already change it.

FT>> We will upload the novel version.

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback. 

Cheers,
Fabrice