Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-08.txt> (An Overview of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms) to Informational RFC

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Tue, 12 February 2013 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47C521F8BD5 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:56:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2MNARmO5zmz2 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:56:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB5321F8B9E for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:56:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <opsawg@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:55:57 -0500
Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.167) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.107) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:15:48 -0500
Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58695D10840; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:38:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r1CHclAC313038; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:38:48 -0500
Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r1CHf5Bs027791; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:41:06 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-239-200.mts.ibm.com [9.65.239.200]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r1CHexP0027001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:41:01 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id r1CHcWbD019578; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:38:32 -0500
Message-Id: <201302121738.r1CHcWbD019578@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20130111193616.19158.16205.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20130111193616.19158.16205.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Comments: In-reply-to The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> message dated "Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:36:16 -0800."
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:38:32 -0500
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 13021220-5806-0000-0000-00001F8B02BA
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-08.txt> (An Overview of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:56:08 -0000

I agree with many of the comments that others have raised on this
thread. Just a couple of things to add that I don't recall seeing
mentioned.

   An OAM protocol is run in the context of a Maintenance Domain,
   consisting of two or more nodes that run the OAM protocol, referred
   to as Maintenance Points (MP).

This defintion could be better. I assume an MD is really more like a
"region", that is a collection of nodes within which (or across which)
some OAM function is run. You might run, e.g., a ping. While that ping
may be between to MPs, it also involves other nodes (MIs). But MIs seem
to be excluded per the above.

   o Continuity Checking (CC):
      Used for verifying the liveness of a connection between two MPs.

What is "liveness" and what is "connection"?  Please define these
terms or point to the defintions in other documents. (I have looked
and have not found a precise definition.)

Note: later in document:

   Continuity checks are used to verify the liveness of a connection or
   a path between two MPs, and are typically sent proactively, though
   they can be invoked on-demand as well.

Here "path" and "connection" are used interchangably.   

   o Connectivity Verification (CV):
      Allows an MP to check whether it is connected to a peer MP, and to
      verify that messages from the peer MP are received through the
      expected path.

what is "connected to a peer"? Does that mean "there is a working
path?" Or something else?

   o Path Discovery / Fault Localization:
      An MP uses this mechanism to trace the route to a peer MP, i.e.,

s/the route/the path/ ???

      to identify the nodes along the path to the peer MP. When a
      connection fails, this mechanism also allows the MP to detect the
      location of the failure.

   o Performance Monitoring:
      Consists of 3 main functions

        o Loss Measurement (LM) - monitors the packet loss rate of a
          connection.

what is "connection" in the context of technologies like TRILL (or IP
for that matter)?, which do hop-by-hop forwarding and/or may do load
balancing via ECMP?

   o "Ping" mode: In this mode LSP ping is used for end-to-end
      connectivity verification between two LERs.

What's an LER?

Thomas