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

Lars Eggert <> Wed, 07 December 2022 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220A5C14F733; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 03:50:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SH5k6zbTECmE; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 03:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA9FBC15259F; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 03:50:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:4d1c:18e3:378c:fa95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 893CB1D8E52; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 13:50:21 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1670413821; bh=eUxRGpgJ5BROwOlqFiGfthKb4bj/+oQHBIiPC6FO9JY=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=acWWyMimi2Nq/cMxdZHXiW2oinsznxAgUPN1kYaSOAs+fmziPrlZ0zWEydXQMhl+h oGLsHioKc0eD0cn5jCtdUEZue1hWpMghKXVP1xxYy5oaAZzroKVWYcu/xOeZZz0zcw DApphPeAbxUmfNtRH6pg+8t64V+oXIxmRycXNBQ8=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_40E42B4E-A8C1-46E8-9CEA-B16A91BBDD55"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.\))
From: Lars Eggert <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 13:50:22 +0200
Cc: General Area Review Team <>,,,
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Joel Halpern <>
X-MailScanner-ID: 893CB1D8E52.A2EEA
X-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] [Last-Call] 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: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 11:50:39 -0000

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


> On Jun 28, 2022, at 23:09, 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.
> 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