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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

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 
> <[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://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