[Detnet] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-14: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-14: 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-mpls-oam/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-14

Thank you for the work put into this document. As my knowledge of MPLS is
rather low, please bear with me. I also found this document not so easy to read
without the context (but this is OK).

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to János Farkas for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 3.1

I find weird to only have 4 bits for session IDs and a 5-bit flags field that
has no flag defined yet. I.e., I fear that more than 16 OAM sessions may be
useful.

Is the Node ID a well-known DetNet concept ?

## Section 3.2

Does this section mean that for transit DetNet node, the processing of an OAM
packet is identical (to the bit level) as a normal data plane DetNet packet?
This may be worth mentioning.

## Section 4.1

Should there be an informative reference to IEEE TSN?

## Section 4.2

Suggestion: give more explanations on the interworking with DetNet IP (in the
same level of interworking with TSN in section 4.1).

## Section 6

This document specifies neither LSP ping nor BFD (they are cited as examples),
so, is there a reason to have the last sentence in the security section about
them?

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## DetNet or Detnet

The document uses both `DetNet` and `Detnet`, suggest to use only one.