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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,
I've uploaded the new version with updates to address your comments and
suggestions:
URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-10.txt
Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam/
HTML:     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-10.html
HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam
Diff:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-10

Please let the authors know if you have any further questions or concerns.

Regards,
Greg



On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 11:47 AM Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>