Re: [Raw] [Detnet] WG adoption poll on draft-mirsky-detnet-ip-oam-03

Dear all, 

Now, the novel RAW draft addresses only wireless challenges, while the detnet draft only focuses on the generic aspects.
Our objective is to reach something stable at the end of the month. 

Regards,
Fabrice

> Le 11 sept. 2020 à 17:23, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> Hi Rick,
> thank you for the question. The authors of draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support are working according to the recommendation the WG expressed at the IETF-108 meeting. We expect that the new draft in DetNet WG and the updated document on specifics of OAM in the RAW environment will be ready for discussions in October.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:58 AM Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com <mailto:rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
>  
> 
> At the IETF-108 there was rough consensus in the room for the split/merge of the OAM documents into DetNet-generic and RAW-specific drafts.
> 
>  
> 
> The chairs have been slow in asking for official confirmation on the list, for which I apologise, but here it is:
> 
>  
> 
> WG: Do you have any objections to the room-consensus from IETF-108 for the OAM document re-organisation.  Please raise your objections quickly, as silence will be regarded as agreement.
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>  
> 
> Rick
> 
>  
> 
> From: RAW [mailto:raw-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:raw-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
> Sent: 31 August 2020 20:40
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: Janos Farkas; DetNet WG; raw@ietf.org <mailto:raw@ietf.org>; draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support@ietf.org <mailto:draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Raw] [Detnet] WG adoption poll on draft-mirsky-detnet-ip-oam-03
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Pascal,
> 
> thank you for your suggestions. I'll apply the editorial fix in the next update of the draft, hope that is acceptable.
> 
> We've discussed your suggestions with the authors draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support.  Perhaps it might be more appropriate to discuss these topics in the new draft that Lou has recommended at the RAW WG meeting. The work has already started and we are planning to share the first version before IETF-109. Do you think that this is a reasonable approach?
> 
> I've added my answers, notes below in-line under GIM>> tag.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Greg
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 12:43 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hello Greg:
> 
>  
> 
> Please find some review comments below
> 
>  
> 
> P4, 1st sentence: Nit; “specified” -> “is specified”
> 
>  
> 
> P4 section 3.1: We need to discuss the attack vector whereby the attacker would flood the DetNet Path with forged OAM and consume the available bandwidth
> 
> GIM>> Such a scenario is more likely applicable to DetNet in general. If you agree, it will be considered in the new document that describes OAM in DetNet.
> 
>  
> 
> P4 section 3.2: We need to elaborate on the OAM behavior if there is a replication point. Also, how it plays with coding.
> 
> GIM>> I think that DetNet WG decided that PREOF is supported only in DetNet with MPLS data plane. I agree with you, the document that defines OAM functions specific to PREOF is required.
> 
>  
> 
> P5 Section 3: Suggestion to add 2 subsections,
> 
> One on the 6TiSCH model that is echoed in the the personal sub of RAW architecture, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-04#section-7 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-04#section-7>, in particular section 7.3.
> GIM>> Thank you for your recommendation, will address this topic in the new draft.
> 
>  
> One on IPPM and iOAM where the measurement fields are in the packet header, inserted by the source (or encapsulator)
> GIM>> Thank you for this question! We will certainly discuss the applicability of the methods to collect on-path telemetry information and transport it for processing in the new DetNet OAM draft (and will add a section on specifics of RAW to draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support).
> 
>  
>  
> 
> Take care,
> 
>  
> 
> Pascal
> 
>  
> 
> From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
> Sent: lundi 17 août 2020 01:04
> To: Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> Cc: DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG adoption poll on draft-mirsky-detnet-ip-oam-03
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Janos, Lou, et al.,
> 
> yes/support adoption as the co-author of the draft.
> 
> The draft is on the Informational track as the authors don't see the need to define any new mechanism for OAM in DetNet over IP.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Greg
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 8:50 AM Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> This is start of a three week poll on making
> 
> draft-mirsky-detnet-ip-oam-03 a working group document. Please
> 
> send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
> 
> support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
> 
> document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd
> 
> like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
> 
>  
> 
> The poll ends September 4.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Janos and Lou
> 
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>