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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Joel, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars


> On Jun 28, 2022, at 23:09, Joel Halpern via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 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
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>    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?
> 
>    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??)
> 
>    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?
> 
>     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".
> 
> 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.
> 
>    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.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call