[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment-02

[Ines Robles via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment-02
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2022-11-16
IETF LC End Date: 2022-11-16
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

The document provides a framework for "In-situ" Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (IOAM) deployment and discusses IOAM Deployment, Types of IOAM,
IOAM Encapsulations, IOAM Data Export, Deployment Considerations and IOAM
Manageability The document is well written, and has a good set of references.

I have some minor questions that I set as nits.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments/Questions:

1- Page 19: "... defining performance limits on IOAM encapsulation and IOAM
exporting" -> how are defined the performance limits? 2- What about the IOAM
Data overhead? if it is possible to have it, how to handle it? 3- The IOAM data
is inserted in the packet, even if the data payload is zero? or this scenario
is not possible? 4- In
[https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-6man-sessb-in-situ-oam-ioam-in-ipv6-and-deployment-considerations-for-in-situ-oam-with-ipv6-options-00.pdf]
states: "Packet forwarding behaviour or decisions should not change due to
presence of IOAM". Does this apply to this document as well, right?

Thanks for this document,
Ines.