Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-06
xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Tue, 11 October 2022 09:43 UTC
Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 29F6FC14F74B; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 02:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KkzOOCTzGqNJ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 02:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A098C14F72F; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 02:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4MmrSz691Jz4xVnf; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:43:47 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxh01app01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.205]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 29B9hd3v092981; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:43:39 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxh01app02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:43:39 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:43:39 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa63453acbffffffffda859d4f
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202210111743397760767@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <166541584130.48944.863927247671754385@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: 166541584130.48944.863927247671754385@ietfa.amsl.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: hayabusagsm@gmail.com
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state.all@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 29B9hd3v092981
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.138.novalocal with ID 63453AD3.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1665481427/4MmrSz691Jz4xVnf/63453AD3.000/10.5.228.81/[10.5.228.81]/mse-fl1.zte.com.cn/<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 63453AD3.000/4MmrSz691Jz4xVnf
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/vYr6AcpyZnyX9toSE00PZr5qEa0>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-06
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: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:43:59 -0000
Hi Gyan, Thank you for the review and thoughtful comments. I'v posted a new -07 revision, attempting to address your comments. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07 Please see inline my responses... Best Regards, Xiao Min Original From: GyanMishraviaDatatracker <noreply@ietf.org> To: gen-art@ietf.org <gen-art@ietf.org>; Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state.all@ietf.org>;ippm@ietf.org <ippm@ietf.org>;last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>; Date: 2022年10月10日 23:30 Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-06 Reviewer: Gyan Mishra 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-?? Reviewer: Gyan Mishra Review Date: 2022-10-10 IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-06 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document describes an extension to the echo request/reply mechanisms used in IPv6 (including Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane (SRv6)), MPLS (including Segment Routing with MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS)), Service Function Chain (SFC) and Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) environments, which can be used within the In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) domain, allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node. The draft is well written and is almost ready for publication. [XM]>>> Thank you. Major issues: None Minor issues: I believe the draft should make more clear the use of the capabilities discovery extension throughout the draft that it applies to both IOAM data and use of IOAM DEX “draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-11” and if it applies to one or the other to make that clear. I can understand how it can easily apply to IOAM Data but for IOAM DEX is based on an export off line postcard based telemetry I am not sure how this extension could be applicable. Also the applicability to both use cases above should be explained in section 4 operational guide. [XM]>>> This draft applies to both IOAM Data and IOAM DEX. The updated draft has made it more clear as you suggested, specifically, both the introduction section and the operational guide section are updated. Nits/editorial comments: Please review the SHOULD normative language where I think maybe MUST might be appropriate middle of page 6 If there is no IOAM capability to be reported by the receiving node, then this container SHOULD be ignored by the receiving node, which means the receiving node SHOULD send an echo reply without IOAM capabilities or no echo reply, in the light of whether the echo request includes other containers than the IOAM Capabilities Query Container. [XM]>>> OK. middle of page 7 A list of IOAM capabilities objects (one or more objects) which contains the enabled IOAM capabilities SHOULD be included in this container of echo reply. [XM]>>> OK. middle of page 8 Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it should be one of the Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request. [XM]>>> OK. Several other places are also changed in the same way. top of page 13 For the echo reply, there should be an IOAM Capabilities Response Container containing one or more Objects. [XM]>>> Considering the quoted text is within the operational guide section, I prefer to remove the normative language.
- [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Gyan Mishra via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… xiao.min2
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review… Lars Eggert