Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/

[Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

We have published a -10 version of the draft based on this discussion.
Please check
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-10.txt and let us
know if it is ready to progress for IESG review.

Thanks,
Shwetha

On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:02 AM Shwetha Bhandari <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ack, will add text to this effect.
>
> Thanks
> Shwetha
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022, 9:23 AM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> If we do not tell the implementors that there can be multiple iOAM
>> headers, and how they are required to process them, then some implementors
>> will follow logic we do not want.
>>
>>
>> For example, you have various selective iOAM headers.  So an SFF looks at
>> the next header to check for iOAM.  Seems it is iOAM.  And then seems the
>> content is iOAM it can ignore.  A naive implementation might well stop
>> right there and proceed with normal SFF processing.  Since you don't want
>> that, just write into the spec what the WG expects.
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Joel
>> On 5/3/2022 11:22 PM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote:
>>
>> Why do we need to call that out explicitly in this draft? Isn't that part
>> of header processing anyway?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Shwetha
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2022, 6:24 AM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Can we have just a sentence or two saying that if there are multiple
>>> iOAM options, the SFF must check all of them for relevance and act on all
>>> relevant ones?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Joel
>>> On 5/3/2022 8:26 PM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Greg, Joel,
>>>
>>> The purpose of these options are different. Reiterating the use cases
>>> described in the draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment draft : hop by hop tracing
>>> related options are -pre-allocated, incremental,direct export. The
>>> edge-to-edge option is not collecting trace but metrics at the edge and
>>> helps in correlation e.g sequence number is inserted and used to identify
>>> packet loss rate. The proof-of-transit option is used to prove that the
>>> packet has traversed the check points in the networks.
>>> There is also IOAM namespace that is used to collect specific data types
>>> in trace options and a node can be configured to process trace options with
>>> a specific namespace, this is useful when we have nodes with varying
>>> implementation of trace option data types defined.
>>> Restricting IOAM option in NSH to a specific number will make it
>>> difficult to deploy. Hence I don't see a need to update the current draft
>>> to add any of this restrictions. Let's use draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment
>>> to understand the use cases and deployment modes.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Shwetha
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2022, 3:01 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>> thank you for highlighting this question, I've missed it.
>>>>
>>>> As we've discussed earlier, several IOAM trace options have been
>>>> defined:
>>>>
>>>>    - pre-allocated
>>>>    - incremental
>>>>    - edge-to-edge
>>>>    - proof-of-transit
>>>>    - direct export
>>>>    - hybrid two-step
>>>>
>>>> I cannot find a scenario when using more than one IOAM trace option
>>>> that could be beneficial, and useful for an operator. I think that if there
>>>> is no use case, then the restricting number of IOAM trace options used is
>>>> reasonable and helps implementors in developing interoperable
>>>> implementations.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 2:42 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (Sorry, catching up on some emails I missed.)
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to allow multiple iOAM headers (up to the WG) then I think
>>>>> the document needs to be clear on the meaning.  If there are multiple are
>>>>> all supposed to be processed, just the top one until something removes it,
>>>>> a random one of the receivers choice?  (Yes, that last is unlikely.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>
>>>>> Joel
>>>>> On 4/27/2022 4:44 AM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Med,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the confirmation and quick review.
>>>>>
>>>>> On,
>>>>>
>>>>>> This means the new requested TBD_IOAM value will also be a valid
>>>>>> next protocol. However, I wonder whether IOAM in IOAM in NSH is really
>>>>>> something you want to have. If not, I suggest the text is updated to
>>>>>> exclude it from the allowed value in the above excerpt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Per earlier discussion in this thread, quoting Frank's mail here for reference:
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, I don’t think that draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh would be the
>>>>>> appropriate place to discuss and restrict deployment options. E.g., I’m not
>>>>>> sure why we’d want to restrict a deployment to using a single IOAM header
>>>>>> only. E.g., one could think of using different headers for different
>>>>>> namespaces or groups of namespaces for operational reasons. IMHO, such a
>>>>>> discussion – if we really need it - would belong into
>>>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment, rather than into a draft that defines the
>>>>>> encap of IOAM into NSH.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the text on Next Protocol should be as is. We should not add
>>>>> restrictions on number of IOAM headers that could be added to the packet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Shwetha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:46 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shwetha, all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The changes look great. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one specific point not addressed in previous replies. This
>>>>>> is related to this text:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Next Protocol:  8-bit unsigned integer that determines the type
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          header following IOAM.  The semantics of this field are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          identical to the Next Protocol field in [RFC8300].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means the new requested TBD_IOAM value will also be a valid next protocol. However, I wonder whether IOAM in IOAM in NSH is really something you want to have. If not, I suggest the text is updated to exclude it from the allowed value in the above excerpt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other than that, I think that the draft is ready to move forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Med
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *De :* Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> *Envoyé :* mercredi 27 avril 2022 10:06
>>>>>> *À :* James Guichard <[e-mail]>;
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
>>>>>> Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=[e-mail]>;
>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>;
>>>>>> [e-mail]; Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [sfc] WGLC for
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NGDq-VFOnDYhCxrwRIz1KbT5hb_RKKqKigks-nyqK1RKq5UgpwytWb7clzmlN3o0X0XBWL0KnE3aQfL7wrrx5ZezQN_YdhHpnETuWA$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear SFC chairs,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A new version of the draft I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh has been submitted
>>>>>> per the discussion in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-09
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-09__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NGDq-VFOnDYhCxrwRIz1KbT5hb_RKKqKigks-nyqK1RKq5UgpwytWb7clzmlN3o0X0XBWL0KnE3aQfL7wrrx5ZezQN_YdhFd29kDew$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we please progress this draft to IESG if there are no further
>>>>>> comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shwetha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 6:41 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thank you for the proposed resolution. I agree with Med, direct
>>>>>> normative reference to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet seems like the logical
>>>>>> conclusion of our discussion of the use of the NSH O bit. Please note that
>>>>>> we're referring to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet in the Active SFC OAM draft,
>>>>>> e.g.,:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The O bit in NSH MUST be set, according to [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 4:27 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer we go for an explicit reference to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet
>>>>>> rather than “any update to RFC8300”. This is consistent with the usage in
>>>>>> the other OAM draft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Med
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *De :* Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> *Envoyé :* jeudi 14 avril 2022 12:06
>>>>>> *À :* Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
>>>>>> Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=[e-mail]>;
>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; James Guichard <
>>>>>> [e-mail]>; Tal Mizrahi <
>>>>>> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [sfc] WGLC for
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!LWQuxxxKpUum5gUoK44-znjehj2YRtlGMOATxfRVSc-7JOrPsk4BA4iP0oLQE4d0rObPhOCG_1iiipywftwMIMOEWh8lJI4$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Med, Greg,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about this text :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “The O-bit MUST be handled following the rules in and any updates
>>>>>> to [RFC8300] ."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet  will update RF8300 and there
>>>>>> could be others in future?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shwetha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 9:24 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that the text you've quoted is helpful. I would suggest
>>>>>> changing references from [RFC8300] to [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet] throughout
>>>>>> that paragraph.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 7:56 AM Shwetha Bhandari <
>>>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Med,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the details: this is exactly what we had before the latest
>>>>>> revision:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *4.2 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-06*section-4.2__;Iw!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIpJPfzrvI$>.  IOAM and the use of the NSH O-bit*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    [RFC8300] defines an "O bit" for OAM packets.  Per [RFC8300 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8300__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIpEB5AbbE$>] the O
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    bit must be set for OAM packets and must not be set for non-OAM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    packets.  Packets with IOAM data included MUST follow this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    definition, i.e. the O bit MUST NOT be set for regular customer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    traffic which also carries IOAM data and the O bit MUST be set for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    OAM packets which carry only IOAM data without any regular data
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    payload.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was removed as per the discussion in this thread. Please check
>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/srMit5zE8UseNOhxknAw_dqvj6M/
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/srMit5zE8UseNOhxknAw_dqvj6M/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIp-CeLfeA$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like we are going in a loop here. This definition of SFC OAM
>>>>>> packet to include the OAM data that comes in inner packets via the next
>>>>>> protocol header chain is introduced in draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet to update
>>>>>> the RFC8300.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim, What are you thoughts on this? Should we reintroduce the above
>>>>>> text ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Shwetha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>>>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>>>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>>>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>>>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ippm mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!KzP7tEXj2r_E1qNyQ90q9rykJ0iG0HA0CecIGBFXEIXiWITYay7wwoC0HbiFfO2GyUarxht3JEY45vcV4uCtZ8Xkud0uv58$>
>>>>>
>>>>