Re: [Detnet] [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls Authors,

Please find one comment inline.

> On Mar 13, 2020, at 7:19 AM, Shwetha Bhandari via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Shwetha Bhandari
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
> the IETF drafts per guidelines in RFC5706 .
> Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
> in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
> treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> Summary:
> This document specified Deterministic Networking data plane over MPLS Packet
> Switched Networks.
> 
> Focussing the review checklist from RFC5706:
> - This document does not specify the controller and OAM function - It defers
> DetNet MPLS to use an associated controller and Operations, Administration, and
> Maintenance (OAM) functions that are defined outside of this  document.
> - It discusses the deployment scenario.
> - There is a Management and Control Information Summary section describes the
> information needed by service and forwarding layers of the data plane from
> DetNet controller plane.  This includes reference to existing MPLS label
> advertisement mechanisms needed for operationalizing DetNet MPLS data plane. -
> For connectivity verification and monitoring: this document follows procedures
> set out in rfc5085 for Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity
> Verification(VCCV) and supports In-Band VCCV (type 1) only. I assume this would
> defer a detailed discussion to a different draft produced by detnet wg
> (draft-mirsky-detnet-mpls-oam-01?) However this is not called out in this
> document.

I agree with this perspective, in which a VCCV type can be specified based on the dataplane itself. In this context, I think saying "VCCV Tyoe 1 only” as the document specifies is the best approach. I would add not only RFC5085 but also RFC 5885 as references for this, since they started as a common document.

However, I do not believe ietf-detnet-mpls should specify what goes over that OAM channel, and not add forward references to individual drafts. 

A statement like “OAM for further study” should suffice. And the document already has:

   Additional considerations on DetNet-specific OAM are subjects for
   further study.

So that sounds as detailed as known for now.

Thanks,

Carlos.

> - There is also a dedicated document  to specify data model for
> provisioning of end-to-end DetNet service - draft-ietf-detnet-yang-05, hence
> not covered in this document.
> 
> Hence with regards to operational considerations listed in RFC 5706 I dont see
> any issues in this document.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-DIR mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir