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

[Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>]

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
>
> 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.
>

[SB] Agreed. Will change to MUST in the revision.

>
> 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.
>

[SB] Will refer to RFC 9197 for the definition of IOAM.


>     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?


>     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??)
>
[SB] Added text to this effect.

>
>     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.


>      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".
>
[SB] done.

>
> 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.
>
[SB] done

>
>     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.


Thanks,
Shwetha