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

Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com> Fri, 28 October 2022 02:14 UTC

Return-Path: <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70C22C15257A for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.103 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=thoughtspot.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sKZvhOAS3d_d for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-0055fe01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0055fe01.pphosted.com [205.220.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A35FDC14CE33 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0211451.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0055fe01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 29S1QsCv024324 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:11:35 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thoughtspot.com; h=mime-version : references : in-reply-to : from : date : message-id : subject : to : cc : content-type; s=proofpoint; bh=rzwJo8hQ2ETdMYbQzAcXJPjafQ7JTWJ6sL/4rWj81UY=; b=JzY0ridharX9vLuSW0VaX/wAebP2Gi4IwYMbPqYbfD3QK0dWBHXsrmdk+y/oEZeehCFg vxHM7X0C5HD9KM0Hv3x9nlYVoXImZ5wUOejEgU18pH+Ikese3hrj9goIWddQsx+QArt6 M970XVZ5Kp9D5+Aj5g/uphdpbGqDOLjERD/DLcq+kHMfeGgZx0f9+7zeMCNiIUVFcTTE 0Mvr8b6dmz9Tmu4YxLDVAU3qCgWjKfCHLmP3t1ExXB8PiA9bEN9MBl9NZgjFZl5Nsz6J 015czBVrMqA/1+3xfS+ho0oYyQysrfMUP0xO7Tn/jh8YMw3GrGnvCBU/cbfxHa28efjJ eg==
Received: from mail-lf1-f71.google.com (mail-lf1-f71.google.com [209.85.167.71]) by mx0b-0055fe01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kfg3wuj04-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <last-call@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:11:34 -0700
Received: by mail-lf1-f71.google.com with SMTP id k19-20020ac24f13000000b004a49391ef9eso1080595lfr.9 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=rzwJo8hQ2ETdMYbQzAcXJPjafQ7JTWJ6sL/4rWj81UY=; b=ytb3Auhl9yK+J7NmtNDGG4vvwyFPxBvoKtK1a4evJFDU3Buw9a5IUHKf+gNPldYXJH w0FVALRQiWne7Z8JCqMoJmwFjQHOE1/F0WolYDE4QjvxYbC0OaVGOOikDOWW24pgBA/L mx01GwnN1R4MvXG0iIYRM9xSTb8JaW8KPiiPnrai8jujixoHysrWyDhz3efU4zh4jEKE bd1+Np+8ROpkpZ42W8pz1Vy/ahnn/X/W6NWwTZ/kr/lOQDQMAT+lIpVK47iw4QEahHmT uxdQY7CVe4JrG2QrkRKMTAs3kjMto5hqxQRb8gwmPAhn0KpL/r1J64hE7x4dBVlRySqq pVqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3Y+HidZmmglveLiRVM3jK2Qz6R5jftHO+jx1ZlVHVggt5OPyM4 0+ASDnAFNsQBh9YEE6WZfvF0siGVZ/fmqvMZlylu3TdHWxpArW8+rJ/+/YEzNZc69AtW45FU4ID T6DXbYTWX5OApSsakx4//qd8hiM0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:b08:b0:4a1:d704:fc59 with SMTP id w8-20020a0565120b0800b004a1d704fc59mr18216696lfu.629.1666923092651; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5siLJfFiUcxI0v6F3mrfjD4KWBQoHkgc0jRGZOUWh/kE+F5lnG1+OUZSS4eqKu8ngo4k9dXaTLYY9z87MN0LI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:b08:b0:4a1:d704:fc59 with SMTP id w8-20020a0565120b0800b004a1d704fc59mr18216686lfu.629.1666923092213; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <165644698691.26121.8228321260533705192@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMFZu3N0HQ4-41iLyU-CB+eAMLs9dDuhSpBL8svJOUgF0FXZVQ@mail.gmail.com> <d43e6a33-5aba-0d0a-67a2-6e9525a1e805@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <d43e6a33-5aba-0d0a-67a2-6e9525a1e805@joelhalpern.com>
From: Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 07:41:20 +0530
Message-ID: <CAMFZu3OhztAFzUB7To2zY7XaQ3rhouws7xQ=M_5jMQXRF9LNmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options.all@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c794f505ec0ec63a"
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: dyEH16mjKFLZkQVQ7Q14aI_76gcsXG_S
X-Proofpoint-GUID: dyEH16mjKFLZkQVQ7Q14aI_76gcsXG_S
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-10-27_07,2022-10-27_01,2022-06-22_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=5 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2210170000 definitions=main-2210280012
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/8BwsBDu5p30AgKe6eEThUS5FcoI>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-08
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 02:14:50 -0000

Hi Martin,

This is to confirm that -09 version of the draft has been published a few
days ago that addresses all the comments per the discussion in this thread.

Thanks
Shwetha

On Sun, Sep 25, 2022, 9:56 AM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> Thank you for addressing my comments.  trimmed, responses where needed in
> line.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
> On 9/24/2022 10:01 PM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote:
>
> Thank you for the detailed review and sorry for a very late response. I am
> creating a revision of the draft based on this feedback.
> Responses and clarifications inline @SB
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 1:39 AM Joel Halpern via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NoSxZQbYffG7SJV0yDCTEy7dKRhLkASqrXTvmSZYhuyCrik6ftQvulTvbfT6xyFBWdoxk_7S4nD87nOYMkJnckbF$
>> >.
>>
>> 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
>
>
>> Minor issues:
>
>
>
>>     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?
>>
>
> [SB] This was an important consideration for implementation and deployment
> that came
> up during the workgroup discussions. Would renaming the sesion to
> deployment and implementation
> considerations work?
>
> <jmh>Yes, renaming the section to "deployment and implementation
> considerations" would resolve this concern. </jmh>
>
>
>
>>
>>     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?
>>
> [SB] This is not addressed in the current draft. A future draft could add
> IOAM field to indicate the AS that added the IOAM data.
>
> <jmh>I marked this as minor, so if you really can't say anything else, I
> guess I can live with it.  But it seems more than a little odd to have a
> requirement in a draft with no way to meet it.</jmh>
>
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
>
>>     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.
>>
> [SB] The deployment options elaborates this option, it is difficult to
> summarize that and add it as part of the requirement.
> I would prefer to keep this context in the deployment options section.
>
> <jmh>Okay.</jmh>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Shwetha
>
>
>