[Detnet] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-12: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-12

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit.

Special thanks to János Farkas for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Roman Danyliw as the acting AD ;-)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 1

Is the 1st paragraph defining what is OAM a little too light ? Operations cover
more than performance monitoring. But, this is not critical for this I-D.

## Section 2.1

Should there be a reference for diff serv and ICMPv[46]?

Isn't it a little weird to use in an IP-only document the sentence `MPLS
networks providing LSP connectivity between DetNet nodes are an example of the
underlay layer` ?

## Section 3

I will let my fellow OPS ADs to chime in, but `OAM protocols and mechanisms act
within the data plane of the particular networking layer` is of course
applicable for the in-path monitoring part of OAM, but probably not for the
control part of OAM, e.g., netconf can be in a separate plane.

What about the use of IPv6 flow label ? Would it help for the IPv6 flows ?

## Section 3.1

While I am far from being a "flow hash" expert, is it really possible for
compute UDP ports having the same hash value ? Especially when most vendors do
not make their flow hash algorithms public ?

To be honest, the intent of sections 3.1 to 3.4 are unclear to me, hence my
above question.

## Section 7

I was really about to raise a DISCUSS for this, but it is too trivial to fix:
please either remove this section or add some contents.

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Oxford comma ?

Should there be an Oxford comma in `Administration and Maintenance`? Notably in
the title and other places.