Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11: (with COMMENT)

Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <> Wed, 02 June 2021 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6DAA3A1A9F; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <>
To: The IESG <>
Cc:,,, Ole Trøan <>,
Subject: Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.30.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Francesca Palombini <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 13:50:47 -0700
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 20:50:48 -0000

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11: No Objection

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
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for the work on this document. A couple of minor comments below.


1. -----

FP: I believe the document could use a sentence in the terminology pointing the
reader to references that describe the terminology used (such as "Custumer
Edge", "locator block", "function F", "controller", "END.X", "SegmentsLeft") -
No need to transcribe each term, but it would add clarity to state "The reader
is expected to be familiar with terms and concepts from .... "

2. -----

FP: Additionally, I think it would make sense to have RFC 8986 as normative

3. -----

   When N receives a packet whose IPv6 DA is S and S is a local SID, the
   line S01 of the pseudo-code associated with the SID S, as defined in
   section of [RFC8754], is appended as follows for the O-flag

FP: suggestion to rephrase so that S01.1 becomes the subject "S01.1 is appended
to the line S01 ... "

4. -----

   The processing node SHOULD rate-limit the number of packets punted to
   the OAM process to a configurable rate.  This is to avoid hitting any

FP: Should this document define a default to this rate? Or is this defined
somewhere else?

5. -----

      2001:db8:B:2:C31:: is a PSP SID, node N4 executes the SID like any
      other data packet with DA = 2001:db8:B:2:C31:: and removes the

FP: (Section 3.1.2) s/N4/N2

6. -----

   2001:db8:B:7:DT999::.  2001:db8:B:7:DT999:: is a USP SID.  N1, N4,

FP: Please define (or reference where it is defined) USP SID

7. -----

   Controller N100 with the help from nodes N1, N4, N7 and implements a
   hybrid OAM mechanism using the O-flag as follows:

FP: "and" seems quite out of place.

8. -----

      Node N4 performs the standard SRv6 SID and SRH processing on the
      original packet P1.  Specifically, it executes the VPN SID

FP: (Section 3.3) s/N4/N7