Re: [Detnet] The new d-ACH format

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sat, 20 November 2021 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 854663A0BD8; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 07:58:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kj13gv5wjWyv; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 07:58:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A12EA3A0BD6; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 07:58:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id y14-20020a17090a2b4e00b001a5824f4918so13246335pjc.4; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 07:58:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DVcs2c+4aQt9yNcYc/n2GVvv5QZqFsW3+Oau1FnvwPY=; b=Ndje3kj5X6PhBCVanumMFRHn9+V8X+F5ErzBW9IFCZnJO77FLHzxe5pj7IZF5yaA89 LXE0gXI3a6nx9yujkT93vf54pj0e7juQloPt9f9QcjBQLeU4fD2FfGkwF8Ua+9BZAzXk YoXCz8AacHdKCG5e5hDgdqK7q1DusJkNNMoIyj0A4AXFpr6ieruZ8D8zPWw7vl4VC08y a4q3MWEjfwUsL4osEMuWF3hgN3+qrfIBFuJkTKJ7Er4cY8hJAs1D2KfgPaoRXM2OZ/hL Nwa9mfHHMB3ilXizNrub5nSQdxdX5ygKzFIsIPzC2mN5FqKBc/ZYKc2NZNsK4mJqjPmn kf0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DVcs2c+4aQt9yNcYc/n2GVvv5QZqFsW3+Oau1FnvwPY=; b=JLLnSTPW2pPWG4/duhP/sF3m5HVN8WspCRUhAVwIneDYN1O+0izZPtRj+UeRDO1v4g Fg0SpQXzMu34iENel0BQLXRnGcGl7n8RzFOFh1Cr2O5PyULUZA64IHxxZlGl2I16MWQG HVsLimUcHKck8bf/v4oqbZRv3n0+q7YvEC3Sqt8C/UTkqBhybnaIrrjG8+xwADbSCIeB bePGT1k2bVSMcjrthX7k9Ru3VUcafFGQ6Ijia0fDOAH2xp6F9hQeqOjwoB4uZkMvMDps fI8T14I8IKdv1Zy4mn6CTsKv64oyqXPzN87umHxAoBEDmFU5M2JB/n1JmZ0hWCNG8hFm L7Ng==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Qu+J/t2dJUfvXrJQs1xTl07zbP3iFxjt3jR84Tbg6Ia4LJ8db lxvPNDQ4m4zO6yyV1+g+Fu/OPjolo1fhU/KGvoR0FoHI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxmrHO/ico4XFwOQOqfOXXht555v6hyXuSEbNZlw6+fIADJxLu+H6qy09/c1wv7e5L7w2/YwOhR9W0g6BtjdjA=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d4c2:b0:142:2039:e8e5 with SMTP id o2-20020a170902d4c200b001422039e8e5mr89075331plg.18.1637423893972; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 07:58:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmWQC9cDZOS7sowcU5ZJsYmJpeUjsaCeCbuxhtD2jS4nGg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXmZriCtWZGRdYFBx7yK_NnSvOmDVbE5wo0FT0FryLcVQ@mail.gmail.com> <ff2311755057431e9f4ddd1fb65db660@huawei.com> <CA+RyBmWyA=1LYfATt49F2PcdYUPj6aepvMqeL3EaHBcQcZ9iKw@mail.gmail.com> <9a9661d82668449aaa82a625f6687b40@huawei.com> <CA+RyBmXuk9qCCZ1q2ca5dZkNL1WMU1ToCiE0Eq_2_ov_SZyYtw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXuk9qCCZ1q2ca5dZkNL1WMU1ToCiE0Eq_2_ov_SZyYtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 10:58:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3aHESCRidi9ScBOF4jjYPWtnhEDXRqQDAzkDyq-9ejUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, "Yangfan(Fan,IP Standards)" <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008c0b8d05d13a7588"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/j2_lPcTRoLyYdjYaW6_7AajMh6s>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] The new d-ACH format
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 15:58:21 -0000

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>rg>; 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*