Re: [Detnet] The new d-ACH format

Hi Greg / Authors & WG

Responses in-line

I agree with taking  individual document d-ACH new proposal for d-ACH for
service sub layer OAM presented and had positive feedback on the solution.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-varga-detnet-service-sub-layer-oam-01#page-6

Combing to WG document

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-05

Responses in-line

Many Thanks!

Gyan

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:29 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Fan,
> thank you for helping progress the DetNet OAM work.
>
> I have a couple of questions for the group:
>
>    - Do you agree that the proposed d-ACH is a good and needed solution
>    for the Service sub-layer OAM?   Gyan> Support
>
>
>    - Do you support it being included in draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam and
>    then discussed as a part of the WG document?  Gyan> Support
>
>
       Once combined we can continue to progress and update as WG document
and address any WG concerns related to field size details mentioned by Fan
in the d-ACH.

>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 6:26 PM Yangfan(Fan,IP Standards) <
> shirley.yangfan@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree we need a thoroughly discussion to this new d-ACH format. Let’s
>> continue the discussion in biweekly OAM meetings.  And I’d be very happy to
>> involve myself more on this work.
>>
>> One more comment to OAM meetings, maybe it is good to share the meeting
>> minutes in WG after each call, could be short but nice. I can do it as I
>> propose it and doesn’t bring burdens to others.
>>
>> Besides, I strongly encourage people to join this helpful meeting to
>> progress DetNet OAM as we have already reached many common understandings
>> on OAM requirements in previous months.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Fan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg
>> Mirsky
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:54 AM
>> *To:* Yangfan(Fan,IP Standards) <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>
>> *Cc:* DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>; DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] The new d-ACH format
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Fan,
>>
>> thank you for your comments and questions. Please find my notes in-lined
>> below tagged GIM>>,
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Yangfan(Fan,IP Standards) <
>> shirley.yangfan@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding the new d-ACH format, I have a few questions to share,
>> hopefully trigger more discussions.
>>
>> 1)       I feel we need more specifications of Node ID.  Using 20 bits
>> to indicate a Node in MPLS data plane, can I deduce it is an MPLS label? In
>> any MPLS data planes except SR-MPLS, there is no definition to use a label
>> to identify a node. If we want a format generic for all MPLS data planes, I
>> wonder whether node id is a good indicator? Whether 20 bits is enough?
>>
>> GIM>> I agree that the DetNet WG will have more discussions on the
>> definition of the Node ID field. I am looking forward to your participation
>> in these discussions.
>>
>> 2)       I also noticed there is a session ID, but is only 4 bit length,
>> which I believe is way too short. Moreover, whether originator node ID and
>> session ID are duplicated here to identify an OAM session. To dig deeper,
>> DetNet OAM should be stateless or stateful?
>>
>> GIM>> Session ID field is only a tentative name. Would it help if we mark
>> it Reserved?
>>
>> 3)       if we plans to take advantages of CFM y.1731 mechanisms,  level
>> and flags are necessary but the length also needs further considerations.
>>
>> GIM>> It is not clear if DetNet OAM could benefit from re-using some
>> principles of Y.1731/CFM as the latter doesn't provide special support for
>> the Service sub-layer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to further discussions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Fan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg
>> Mirsky
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:55 AM
>> *To:* DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>
>> *Cc:* DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] The new d-ACH format
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I hope you've recovered from the IETF-112 (timing on the West Coast was
>> brutal).
>>
>> Please share your thoughts, comments, and questions about the proposed
>> new format of d-ACH and whether you support including it and updating
>> draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 5:14 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Bala'zs has presented the new d-ACH (DetNet Associated Channel Header)
>> format at the DetNet WG meeting. Earlier this week, the new d-ACH format
>> was presented at joint PALS, MPLS, and DetNet meeting and received several
>> positive comments. At the DetNet WG meeting, it was proposed to integrate
>> the technical part, the new format of d-ACH
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-varga-detnet-service-sub-layer-oam-01#page-6> into
>> the draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam/>.
>>
>> Please, respond with the indication of your support or no support for the
>> proposed update of the WG document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Greg (as the Editor of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*