[ippm] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 23 March 2021 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54753A0E1C; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, Al Morton <acm@research.att.com>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161652228030.7620.12829776941431765513@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:58:00 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Do4U1UiZXW9i7thkOyKcSW_s2O8>
Subject: [ippm] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:58:01 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I have several significant issues to bring up.  Individually, none of them
raise to the point of a DISCUSS, so I'm balloting No Objection.

(1) §5.3: "Any IOAM-Namespace MUST interpret the IOAM-Option-Types and
associated IOAM-Data-Fields per the definition in this document."  This
sentence seems to not say much beyond requiring compliance with this document,
which is obvious since this document is the one defining the IOAM-Namespaces.

(2) §5.3: "IOAM-Namespace identifiers MUST be present and populated in all
IOAM-Option-Types."   What does "populated" mean?  I assumed that it meant that
the field has to have a value in it, but then I found out that the
Default-Namespace-ID is 0x0000.  This seems to mean that the receiver can't
tell the difference between the sender forgetting to populate the field and the
default.  IOW, it seems to me that requiring that the field be populated
doesn't serve a specific need and cannot be normatively enforced.

(3) §5.3: Given the example, I don't think this statement is true:

   "...node identifiers might not be unique for other organizational reasons,
   such as after a merger of two formerly separated organizations), the
   combination of node_id and Namespace-ID will always be unique."

It seems to me that for the same reason that merged organizations can end up
with overlapping node_ids, they can also end up with overlapping Namespace-IDs.
 If not deployed in an overlapping way (on the same set of nodes), it seems
that it may be ok to have the same Namespace-ID in multiple places.

This deployment consideration should be better explained in this document.  I
took a quick look at draft-brockners-opsawg-ioam-deployment and this item is
not covered there either.

(4) I think that the encapsulation-independent pieces of
draft-brockners-opsawg-ioam-deployment would be better placed in this document.

(5) §5.4: "Any deployment MAY choose to configure and support one or both of
the following options."  This sentence looks like a statement of fact and not a
normative statement. s/MAY/may

(6) §5.4.1: "The Namespace-ID value of 0x0000 is defined as the
"Default-Namespace-ID" (see Section 5.3) and MUST be known to all the nodes
implementing IOAM."  The second part ("MUST be known...") is not needed because
this document is defining the default value...

(7) §5.4.1:

      An IOAM encapsulating node MUST set NodeLen.

      A node receiving an IOAM Pre-allocated or Incremental Trace-Option
      relies on the NodeLen value, or it can ignore the NodeLen value
      and calculate the node length from the IOAM-Trace-Type bits (see

Assuming that the NodeLen is not 0 (i.e. set), when can the receiver ignore it?
 If NodeLen is 0 (not set), what should the receiver do?   The text above
requires NodeLen to be set, but then it makes its use optional.

(8) §5.4.1: "RemainingLen: ...the sender MAY set the initial value of
RemainingLen according to the number of node data bytes allowed before
exceeding the MTU. ... When node data is added, the node MUST decrease
RemainingLen by the amount of data added."

This text includes a normative inconsistency.  If the sender doesn't initialize
the "value of RemainingLen according to the number of node data bytes allowed"
(because it is optional!), and the transit node does "decrease RemainingLen by
the amount of data added" (because it is required), then the value won't
reflect the data space remaining and a downstream node may add enough bits to
overflow -- or not add anything because it considered the overflow imminent.

(9) §5.4.1: "If RemainingLen in a pre-allocated trace option exceeds the length
of the option, as specified in the preceding header, then the node MUST NOT add
any fields."   I didn't find "the length of the option" defined anywhere.  Did
I miss it?

(10) §5.4.1:

    Bit 12-21  Undefined.  An IOAM encapsulating node MUST set the
               value of each of these bits to 0.  If an IOAM transit
               node receives a packet with one or more of these bits set
               to 1, it MUST either:

               1.  Add corresponding node data filled with the reserved
                   value 0xFFFFFFFF, after the node data fields for the
                   IOAM-Trace-Type bits defined above, such that the
                   total node data added by this node in units of
                   4-octets is equal to NodeLen, or

This first option assumes that all undefined data fields will be 4-octets long.
 But if future data fields are defined to be 8-octets (and the transit node
doesn't understand them) then 0xFFFFFFFF won't be enough and there will be a
misalignment.  IOW, I don't think it is possible to require this behavior --
unless it is also required that all future data fields have to be 4-octets long.

(11) Some of the values to be included in the data fields (§5.4.*) are not well
defined and could result in nodes reporting inconsistent measurements. 
Specifically, transit delay and queue depth.  It would be ideal if the document
provided some guidance for the implementation/use.

(12) §8.7: "Upon a new allocation request, the responsible AD will appoint a
designated expert, who will review the allocation request."   This sentence is
not needed: the assignment happens only once and not when whenever "a new
allocation request" comes up.