Re: [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-08

Shwetha Bhandari <> Sun, 25 September 2022 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C1CC1524B2 for <>; Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3NRaTg2Qbe07 for <>; Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5C12C1522D5 for <>; Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with ESMTP id 28P1xnNk001418 for <>; Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:01:53 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=mime-version : references : in-reply-to : from : date : message-id : subject : to : cc : content-type; s=proofpoint; bh=0XVpCwXgGSDGbLcR8C8iRLMnOQ40JGc2AOAoP3TfgbE=; b=ETSA93kzODb35OQOXol3qskfBwW0KAdqs8wrk36tBzfMs+/Uk/geAz43xBlmn8CCefdW 4RkEguGNdk8DEbwiC5aRNE5b/PhovZhHLxAH/hbRuSv7fqsoYzFwOYM+83sdWaiorrny p4371Wb3X/bcRWQQGwtvW4xmLHB9we2lVgIbIc9wwlvlWUb/TK9K06urqhoFUpgakHCr Tf98zNQTW5yJvrgcy1yVz/MKsdawFTdjqQDhoLfUQYHrVEmBFOaqPFMcZgo/VGIabQ5q 8LmpKl0mda/Q0IlkGqlmX8IhKz1U0ZNH4cvDEJzbeaOFJqUAs2zkOdAE7FSQWuhNsdvB tA==
Received: from ( []) by (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3jsy1n1mfv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <>; Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:01:53 -0700
Received: by with SMTP id b34-20020a2ebc22000000b0026c273ba56dso794459ljf.1 for <>; Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=0XVpCwXgGSDGbLcR8C8iRLMnOQ40JGc2AOAoP3TfgbE=; b=BMVpmed8AjOfzgVOiXz0IdEoXDjuDN1IlhhJtLxHR2iwvnN7dqV0gAIf8PDjslodqx PMB5r1cD6qeOEcpXD812Jc/tsPRDbj68F4Lo4qzLg7KQGzMZmB/ZzMXS8sV2kOLYvZ5R egvtAJpLFQ2rk29ZIjpW5vvTI1t4B8JvKlAo0ZtoQn0lavWnZgmWt/D3LsOpr/CnZNwG b5gXgCOUWs4cRV57UiBko/RA6ssrGO699VnZEtKjWILGHmxlUW+hUJfl+jyNXWa+1tlP wB4jro6bCwytpA+QmfmsUklyeVxy5EeFrZvPVqCf3IbaBAxPJIP6s+SLgFGT3x0a1Img eC9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3eOiQrLHY4cmXivF168wr+00KAwTZspt8wMYpXUzyNIsU807ZZ 8k7b9I1n6+DtiDhiiHnxrQlxEH8K903+SEGHYXGNwL3ttC9sb2hne8vkh0FWbZmjzVISfzp5WQ1 ucQK+etM1SzcPfAQwm40O
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2211:b0:496:7767:28b with SMTP id h17-20020a056512221100b004967767028bmr6570788lfu.433.1664071310902; Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6cqsAak1oNDj/Ub6IV8TtLAPAkyaxTPK2hzTSi39k3NpCSxNGb7Qzl9sPvRttxoQUMEFe2fsaCZdNXox7Hr14=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2211:b0:496:7767:28b with SMTP id h17-20020a056512221100b004967767028bmr6570782lfu.433.1664071310509; Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Shwetha Bhandari <>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2022 07:31:39 +0530
Message-ID: <>
To: Joel Halpern <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000581f7405e976cb6d"
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: GEvZU1SEXDLkbf7uFVsytgdBFER0AeCy
X-Proofpoint-GUID: GEvZU1SEXDLkbf7uFVsytgdBFER0AeCy
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.528,FMLib: definitions=2022-09-24_14,2022-09-22_02,2022-06-22_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 bulkscore=5 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2209130000 definitions=main-2209250011
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2022 02:01:58 -0000

Thank you for the detailed review and sorry for a very late response. I am
creating a revision of the draft based on this feedback.
Responses and clarifications inline @SB

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 1:39 AM Joel Halpern via Datatracker <> wrote:

> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 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
> <
> >.
> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-08
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2022-06-28
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-07-01
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> Summary: If the issues identified below are addressed, this document will
> be
> ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
> Major issues:
>     Why is the domain boundary expectation in section 4 only a SHOULD?
> Either
>     there is no need to restrict it, or it is important and it is a MUST?
> This
>     comes up again in section 5.1 item C4.

[SB] Agreed. Will change to MUST in the revision.

> Minor issues:
>     The document uses the term IOAM extensively.  It expands the term as
>     "In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance".  While a good
> start,
>     it would be very helpful if the document either defined IOAM or cited a
>     definition.  The expansion does not explain what the difference is
> between
>     IOAM and other forms of OAM, nor indicate what sorts of packets IOAM
>     applies to.

[SB] Will refer to RFC 9197 for the definition of IOAM.

>     Section 5.1 (Considerations for IOAM deployment in IPv6 networks)
>     requirement C1 seems to be an implementation requirement not a
> deployment
>     requirement.  The text even ends with "Implementations of IOAM
> SHOULD..."
>     Why is this in a deployment considerations section?

[SB] This was an important consideration for implementation and deployment
that came
up during the workgroup discussions. Would renaming the sesion to
deployment and implementation
considerations work?

>     Requirement C3 in section 5.1 is very oddly worded.  It seems to say "X
>     should not happen" but does not tell the implementor or deployer how to
>     avoid having X occur.  I would recommend rewording.  (At a guess,
> something
>     about how entities sending errors outside of an IOAM domain should
> remove
>     any IOAM data??)
[SB] Added text to this effect.

>     Requirement C5 in 5.1 says that leaks need to be easily identified and
>     attributed.  That's nice.  It doesn't seem to say HOW that is to be
> done.
>     So how does an implementor or deployer comply with the requirement?
[SB] This is not addressed in the current draft. A future draft could add
IOAM field to indicate the AS that added the IOAM data.

>      Could the description clause of the two IANA entries please use "IOAM
>      destination option" and "IOAM hop-by-hop option" rather than
> describing
>      them both just as "IOAM".
[SB] done.

> Nits/editorial comments:
>     Given the problems of acronym overload and the sparse need for it, I
> would
>     recommend not using the acronym ION (IOAM Overlay Network), and simply
>     spelling that out in the few places it is needed.
[SB] done

>     It would be helpful if section 5.3 (IOAM domains bounded by network
>     devices) restated that such ingress edge devices will encapsulate the
> user
>     packet, and put the IOAM option in the resulting encapsulating
> header.  And
>     decapsulate at the egress.
[SB] The deployment options elaborates this option, it is difficult to
summarize that and add it as part of the requirement.
I would prefer to keep this context in the deployment options section.