[ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 25 March 2021 12:29 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 EAC493A1FE5; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 05:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lars Eggert 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>, acm@research.att.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-ID: <161667538893.15241.7322339760692550091@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 05:29:48 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/nT5IbixhVV11QtU_knePvK_ZvUI>
Subject: [ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with DISCUSS and 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: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:29:49 -0000

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: Discuss

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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 5.4, paragraph 6, discuss:
>    A particular implementation of IOAM MAY choose to support only one of
>    the two trace option types.  In the event that both options are

Not requiring at least one mandatory-to-implement trace option type is highly
problematic, since it creates two incompatible flavors of this standard.
Preventing bifurcation seems to trump the desire for allowing (minor?)
optimizations.


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

Section 1, paragraph 4, comment:
>    IOAM use cases and mechanisms have expanded as this document matured,
>    resulting in additional flags and options that could trigger creation
>    of additional packets dedicated to OAM.  The term IOAM continues to
>    be used for such mechanisms, in addition to the "in-situ" mechanisms
>    that motivated this terminology.

Suggest to rephrase this expanded view on IAM in a way that does not tie the
description to the time period during which this soon-to-be-archival document
was edited.

Section 5.2, paragraph 6, comment:
>    A transit node MUST ignore IOAM-Option-Types that it does not
>    understand.  A transit node MUST NOT add new IOAM-Option-Types to a
>    packet, MUST NOT remove IOAM-Option-Types from a packet, and MUST NOT
>    change the IOAM-Data-Fields of an IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option-Type.

I'm surprised that IOAM data isn't authenticated or even integrity-protected at
all. Relying on RFC2119 language alone seems a pretty weak protection.

Section 5.3, paragraph 9, comment:
>    Namespace identifiers allow devices which are IOAM capable to
>    determine:
>
>    o  whether IOAM-Option-Type(s) need to be processed by a device: If
>       the Namespace-ID contained in a packet does not match any
>       Namespace-ID the node is configured to operate on, then the node
>       MUST NOT change the contents of the IOAM-Data-Fields.
>
>    o  which IOAM-Option-Type needs to be processed/updated in case there
>       are multiple IOAM-Option-Types present in the packet.  Multiple
>       IOAM-Option-Types can be present in a packet in case of
>       overlapping IOAM-Domains or in case of a layered IOAM deployment.
>
>    o  whether IOAM-Option-Type(s) has to be removed from the packet,
>       e.g. at a domain edge or domain boundary.

I'll note that cryptographically authenticating IOM data would probably result
in a system that wouldn't need the concept of namespaces, because keys would
automatically serve that purpose. (A device can't update an IOAM data item if it
doesn't have the key to authenticate the update with.)

Section 5.4, paragraph 11, comment:
>    o  Time of day when the packet was processed by the node as well as
>       the transit delay.  Different definitions of processing time are
>       feasible and expected, though it is important that all devices of
>       an in-situ OAM domain follow the same definition.

I think "important" is an understatement, this seems required? Also, capturing
time-of-day seems to require synchronized clocks.

Section 5.4.2.12, paragraph 2, comment:
> 5.4.2.12.  buffer occupancy
>
>    The "buffer occupancy" field is a 4-octet unsigned integer field.
>    This field indicates the current status of the occupancy of the
>    common buffer pool used by a set of queues.  The units of this field
>    are implementation specific.  Hence, the units are interpreted within
>    the context of an IOAM-Namespace and/or node-id if used.  The authors
>    acknowledge that in some operational cases there is a need for the
>    units to be consistent across a packet path through the network,
>    hence it is RECOMMENDED for implementations to use standard units
>    such as Bytes.

There are other "standard units" here, such as packets. You'd need to recommend
a specific standard unit and not just give an example.

Section 5.5, paragraph 3, comment:
>    o  Random: Unique identifier for the packet (e.g., 64-bits allow for
>       the unique identification of 2^64 packets).

If this identifier is supposed to be unique, it can't be random. And if it's
random, it will only be able to statistically uniquely identify a much smaller
number of packets (birthday paradox).

Section 6.3, paragraph 11, comment:
>       Microseconds: specifies the fractional portion of the number of
>       seconds since the epoch.
>
>       + Size: 32 bits.
>
>       + Units: the unit is microseconds.  The value of this field is in
>       the range 0 to (10^6)-1.

Given that the max. value for microseconds is 999999, using a 32-bit field
leaves the top eight bits unused.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are very minor change suggestions that you may choose to
incorporate in some way (or ignore), as you see fit. There is no need to let me
know what you did with these suggestions.

Matt Joras' Gen-ART review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/vzngkYWy-W-f0PHqAPNRlyNSwnw/)
contains several other nits that I wanted to make sure you were aware of.

"Abstract", paragraph 2, nit:
-    protocols such as NSH, Segment Routing, Geneve, IPv6 (via extension
-                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-    header), or IPv4.  In-situ OAM can be used to complement OAM
-   ---------
-    mechanisms based on e.g.  ICMP or other types of probe packets.
-                            ^
+    protocols such as NSH, Segment Routing, Geneve, IPv6,
+                                                        ^
+    or IPv4.  In-situ OAM can be used to complement OAM
+    mechanisms based on, e.g., ICMP or other types of probe packets.
+                       +     ^

Section 1, paragraph 2, nit:
-    in [RFC7799] IOAM could be portrayed as Hybrid Type 1.  IOAM
-    mechanisms can be leveraged where mechanisms using e.g.  ICMP do not
-                                                           ^
+    in [RFC7799], IOAM could be portrayed as Hybrid Type 1.  IOAM
+                +
+    mechanisms can be leveraged where mechanisms using, e.g., ICMP, do not
+                                                      +     ^     +

Section 4, paragraph 3, nit:
-    expected that each such encapsulation will be defined in the relevant
-                                           ^ ^
+    expected that each such encapsulation would be defined in the relevant
+                                           ^^ ^

Section 4, paragraph 4, nit:
-    IOAM data does not leak beyond the edge of an IOAM domain using,for
+    IOAM data does not leak beyond the edge of an IOAM domain using, for
+                                                                    +

Section 4, paragraph 4, nit:
-    processing (e.g.  load-balancing schemes based on packet length could
-                    ^
-    be impacted by the increased packet size due to IOAM), path MTU (i.e.
+    processing (e.g., load-balancing schemes based on packet length could
+                    ^
+    be impacted by the increased packet size due to IOAM), path MTU (i.e.,
+                                                                         +

Section 4, paragraph 4, nit:
-    message handling (i.e. in case of IPv6, IOAM support for ICMPv6 Echo
+    message handling (i.e., in case of IPv6, IOAM support for ICMPv6 Echo
+                          +

Section 4, paragraph 7, nit:
-    are encapsulated into "parent" protocols, like e.g., NSH or IPv6 is
+    are encapsulated into "parent" protocols, like, e.g., NSH or IPv6 is
+                                                  +

Section 4, paragraph 8, nit:
-    the-night model, i.e. IOAM-Data-Fields in one layer are independent
+    the-night model, i.e., IOAM-Data-Fields in one layer are independent
+                         +

Section 5.1, paragraph 3, nit:
-    different categories.  In IOAM these categories are referred to as
+    different categories.  In IOAM, these categories are referred to as
+                                  +

Section 5.2, paragraph 2, nit:
-    transit nodes".  The role of a node (i.e. encapsulating, transit,
+    transit nodes".  The role of a node (i.e., encapsulating, transit,
+                                             +

Section 5.2, paragraph 3, nit:
-    called the "IOAM encapsulating node", whereas a device which removes
-           ^^^
-    an IOAM-Option-Type is referred to as the "IOAM decapsulating node".
-                                          ^^^
+    called an "IOAM encapsulating node", whereas a device which removes
+           ^^
+    an IOAM-Option-Type is referred to as an "IOAM decapsulating node".
+                                          ^^

Section 5.2, paragraph 7, nit:
-    means that an IOAM node which is e.g. an IOAM-decapsulating node for
+    means that an IOAM node which is, e.g., an IOAM-decapsulating node for
+                                    +     +

Section 5.3, paragraph 6, nit:
-    assigned range is intended to be domain specific, and managed by the
-                                           ^
+    assigned range is intended to be domain-specific, and managed by the
+                                           ^

Section 5.3, paragraph 9, nit:
-       e.g. at a domain edge or domain boundary.
+       e.g., at a domain edge or domain boundary.
+           +

Section 5.4, paragraph 2, nit:
-    deployment all nodes in an IOAM-Domain would participate in IOAM and
+    deployment, all nodes in an IOAM-Domain would participate in IOAM and
+              +

Section 5.4, paragraph 2, nit:
-    ways to deal with situations where the PMTU was underestimated, i.e.
+    ways to deal with situations where the PMTU was underestimated, i.e.,
+                                                                        +

Section 5.4, paragraph 10, nit:
-       i.e. ingress interface.
+       i.e., ingress interface.
+           +

Section 5.4, paragraph 11, nit:
-       i.e. egress interface.
+       i.e., egress interface.
+           +

Section 5.4.1, paragraph 2, nit:
-    i.e. an IOAM transit node MUST NOT modify the Namespace-ID, NodeLen,
+    i.e., an IOAM transit node MUST NOT modify the Namespace-ID, NodeLen,
+        +

Section 5.4.2.2, paragraph 6, nit:
-    with ingressing or egressing packets, i.e. ingress_if_id could
+    with ingressing or egressing packets, i.e., ingress_if_id could
+                                              +

Section 5.6, paragraph 9, nit:
-                encapsulating node e.g. by n-tuple based classification
+                encapsulating node, e.g., by n-tuple based classification
+                                  +     +

Section 5.6, paragraph 10, nit:
-                encapsulating node e.g. by n-tuple based classification
+                encapsulating node, e.g., by n-tuple based classification
+                                  +     +