IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-08

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Thu, 13 October 2022 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
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 13004C1524B2 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 20:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MgACcu4Ha3DS for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 20:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76D8FC1524B4 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 20:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4MnwDz6BZGz67m9N for <detnet@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:37:07 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemi100010.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.54) by fraeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.31; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 05:37:53 +0200
Received: from kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.199) by kwepemi100010.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:37:52 +0800
Received: from kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.199]) by kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.199]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.031; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:37:52 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-08
Thread-Index: Adjddz+0sqo8FA9DQO+bSBcDx8ggEQBO554Q
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 03:37:52 +0000
Message-ID: <d482aeccbf074657aa3079e144816aaf@huawei.com>
References: <AS8PR07MB8298C35F4BFC3B9BF74227C4F2239@AS8PR07MB8298.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AS8PR07MB8298C35F4BFC3B9BF74227C4F2239@AS8PR07MB8298.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.41.84]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d482aeccbf074657aa3079e144816aafhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/hK1yRsDIJYuPGozPIK_60Guq0UU>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-08
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 03:38:00 -0000

Hi Authors,

I read this draft and find it's useful.
I have several suggestions as follows.
1. I am not clear why existing PW OAM cannot be used directly for DetNet. I think there will be text to describe why 4 bytes are added, and also why each field, like node id.
2. There is no description for Level,  Flags, and Session fields on the meaning. I do not know how to use and how to extend.
3. "Channel Type - contains the value of DetNet Associated Channel Type." This is confusing to me at first sight. It seem you are going to define a new channel type. I struggled a while before I understand finally. So it would be nice to revise the text.
4. You mentioned hybrid OAM a little bit in section 4. IMHO, it has nothing to do with this draft, including the solution, the format. So, I would suggest to clean up the hybrid OAM texts in this doc.

Best,
Tianran

From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Janos Farkas
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 10:23 PM
To: detnet@ietf.org
Subject: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-08

All,

This starts working group last call on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam/

The working group last call ends on October 25th.
Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.

No IPR has been disclosed against this document.

Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
This is useful and important, even from authors.

Thank you,
János (DetNet Co-Chair & doc Shepherd)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email