Re: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

That helps a lot, thanks. I might add normative text to your proposed change

The OAM process is expected to be located on the routing node processing
the packet.

   Although the specification of the OAM process or the external controller

   operations are beyond the scope of this document, the OAM process SHOULD
NOT be

   topologically distant from the routing node, as this is likely to create
significant security

   and congestion issues."

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:06 PM Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your comments.
>
> Please see [ZA] in-line.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Regards … Zafar
>
>
>
> *From: *Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> *Reply-To: *Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Monday, May 24, 2021 at 2:52 PM
> *To: *The IESG <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> *Resent-From: *<[e-mail]>
> *Resent-To: *<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> *Resent-Date: *Monday, May 24, 2021 at 2:52 PM
>
>
>
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
>
> draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> DISCUSS:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I would like to clarify that when the pseudocode says "Send the copied
> packet,
>
> along with a timestamp to the OAM process for telemetry data collection and
>
> export," that this "process" is colocated on the router, and that this
> process
>
> further digests the data so that there is much less than 1 packet going
> out of
>
> the box per O-bit packet processed.
>
>
>
> If there is a case where each O-bit packet generates an entire packet
> going off
>
> the router to a controller or external OAM process, there are extremely
>
> unfortunate corner cases that are not sufficiently mitigated by
> rate-limiting.
>
>
>
> [ZA] You are right. In fact, this point is explicit mentioned in section
> 3.3, bullet 5 (processing at Node N4) [
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10#section-3.3].
>
>
> “As part of processing
>
>       the O-flag, it sends a timestamped copy of the packet to a local
>
>       OAM process.
>
> “
>
> The rest of the exporting is based on local policy at the router.
>
>
>
> To further clarify, we can add additional text in section 2.1.1
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10#section-2.1.1,
> as follows:
>
>
>
> Current Text: Specification of the OAM process or the external controller
>
> operations are beyond the scope of this document.
>
>
>
> Proposed Text:  The OAM process is expected to be located on the routing
> node processing the packet,
>
>    however the specification of the OAM process or the external controller
>
>    operations are beyond the scope of this document.
>
>
>
> Would the above diffs address your comment? Please advise
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> COMMENT:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Thank you for addressing the TSVART comments (and to Magnus for the review)
>
>
>
> I see that some of the contributors are in common, but this would appear to
>
> have substantial overlap with
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export/.
>
>
>
> [ZA] Yes, IPPM DEX options do overlap with this functionality.
>
> [ZA] This specification describes how to provide that functionality with a
> single bit in the SR Header.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>