Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 13 June 2020 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2D63A07F2; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BYbDLH0lU6Fj; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDADE3A07F0; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id q19so13178260lji.2; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cZZXYF72M6iVimSDIXJylVin9BLLWyXhaqWf8TiX4S0=; b=OMonwkTAOGDoql3aGaffwDWscu3zBOF0B5/MwgITPuQUP0qbu5WXz/FNBdl6onMA4u 3y2nBfxWRqgGVsrs2X5NdBdET3MSujBgm1VyiEmACHAgQF5S7GcF7sacoFP5klo+ivc5 E8HiJuVW1MNKF62ppxBtp3edzMY88BILEbth8wvp06cVOGg3qgCfImoR18n7ZLnEjEZG Lwt3Ffhyzp3Lez2nEvdQe29Wfy+Fl3sPk7OoTH7R6OLmjGadXmUYgkQv3Aq1HQRcIuBJ 6KOkWwulwis2897+UONH/DOL97xQq8VC4j28WMkeSAmUVs/x1ACGO21JI7jJqpDs9/kn 5cJA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cZZXYF72M6iVimSDIXJylVin9BLLWyXhaqWf8TiX4S0=; b=P7PRupjPjoAY1qfIrlzJWFHMHK20GY9bweyN4C0u2sVrPiS4uW/GXwP0VEWNEk+ipr QSwhzzPQqDcHwxod/FodqPJfSY6j5CrFf1jgVhGjblA1rdWsmISUhT7fbGqEmp3bK9Fn 23wnDuafwaBr581YEkW7E5Xf+zdTqPRB6wJML9l+NqbjmA/1FLMe8L2X11fTsVC4VzIJ XUQ/vf5Em+zTZgf00g52XUI16CLdCLRFa/iacy7urwFglTmkMjM7mb1EvdbBqd/IK/z4 Z9V3wyVU2hallDosuytUcBaqqu+8F/bXXxZ/LNXQQW5J7iquiw6y41TVqahXe/q/B0bO QRRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532vBkEMZRq3HqAe34ldWXOVofukCXfxt6AcGYmnNdBeWOnS3aDP GbMdfSDF0RHbLn84GmTrtG8ffo7RcyLaJqNX7l8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzarkSBTuL4kal8qvH6FUI+aoxkCXXw59amRMYxA81KdksEBXdmzpnpA+RcLdZHm9npNvXWdv+8tx5Lw0P+UyI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:98c2:: with SMTP id s2mr7784218ljj.288.1592013991816; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CH2PR19MB40241A395AAD7976CD74FE11FCA40@CH2PR19MB4024.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR13MB3117086E43C785B4A327D942F2820@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB3117086E43C785B4A327D942F2820@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:06:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWvT0rgoUWmmdZd0qN+q2BCt7vk52u321d9miZZ3rYNow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org" <draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000075b69b05a7eda400"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/6yBYe7mx8WNpBynnMh28mIdgA6E>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 02:07:02 -0000

Hi Huaimo,
thank you for your comments. Though I am not a co-author of the draft, I am
very interested in the topic. I have a question related to your comments
and conclusions below:

   - you've noted "It seems that the Performance Measurement for a SR P2MP
   Path (or policy) is limited to one way and out-of-band. Should the document
   add some texts talking about these limitations?" If that truly is the case,
   i.e., the proposed OAM mechanism can only work as out-of-band, what is the
   value of the measurement results using the synthetic method of measurement?
   If, as you have noted, a test packet does not follow the monitored data
   flow, how trustworthy and useful the loss and delay measurement are
   achieved? I think that I cannot agree with your conclusion that the prosed
   PM OAM mechanism can only work as out-of-band tool, i.e., support direct
   measurement statistics by collecting counters. The fact that a test packet,
   as described in the draft, uses the precisely same policies as a data
   packet, in my view, ensures that it is in-band and shares the fate with the
   data flow, which is essential to obtaining useful performance measurements.

I much appreciate your consideration of my question.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:52 PM Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>     I have reviewed the document and have the following comments.
>
>     1.  The document is useful and technically sound. It can be considered
> for WG adoption.
>
>     2.  The document seems talking about the Loss Measurement Message
> and Delay Measurement Message. Should it have some texts for Combined
> Loss/Delay Measurement Message?
>
>     3.  There are a couple of IETF drafts about SR P2MP Path.. The
> document just mentions one of them and the Performance Measurement for a SR
> P2MP Path (or policy) is based on this one draft. Should the Performance
> Measurement for a SR P2MP Path (or policy) be general enough for all?
>
>     4.  It seems that the Performance Measurement for a SR P2MP Path (or
> policy) is limited to one way and out-of-band. Should the document add some
> texts talking about these limitations?
>
>     5.  The registry for the newly defined Return Path TLV Type and Block
> Number TLV Type is missing in the document. Is it the "MPLS Loss/Delay
> Measurement TLV Object" registry?
>
>     6.  It seems that a new registry should be defined for the Sub-TLV
> types under the Return Path TLV in the document.
>
>     7.  In section 5.1. and section 6.1., Should "For both SR Links and
> end-to-end measurement for SR-MPLS Policies" be changed to something like
> "For both SR Links and end-to-end SR-MPLS Policies measurements"?
>
>     8.  In section 6.2., should something like a user case be added into
> the sentence "The Block Number TLV is Mandatory when used.."?
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>