Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tal,
many thanks for your thorough review and thoughtful comments. Please find
our responses below under the GIM>> tag. Also, the attached diff highlights
the proposed updates.

Best regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 2:32 AM Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this
> draft.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework/
>
> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for
> publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time
> during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose
> of the early review depends on the stage that the document has
> reached.
>
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Document: draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-07
> Reviewer: Tal Mizrahi
> Review Date: January 19th, 2023
> Intended Status: Informational
>
> Summary:
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
> should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.
>
> Comments:
>
> The document summarizes the OAM requirements of DetNet networks. The
> document provides a good background of the necessary OAM components
> and presents the requirements of the OAM solutions.
>
> Issues:
>
> - It would be helpful if the abstract would say that the target
>
> audience of this document is the DetNet working group members, and is
>
> intended to be used as a set of requirements for future work in the
>
> DetNet working group.
>
> GIM>> Thank you for the suggestion. Would adding the following sentence be
>> helpful?
>
> NEW TEXT:
>
>    The document will
>
>    be used in future work that defines the applicability of and extension
>
>    of OAM protocols for a deterministic network.
>
>
>> - Section 3 - Operation:
>
>   - For each of the sections 3.2-3.7 it would be helpful if you could
>
> specify how PREOF affects each of these functions. For example,
>
> continuity checking: what happens if MEP A and MEP B are two PREOF
>
> endpoints - is continuity checking performed individually for each of
>
> the PREOF paths, or is PREOF transparent to the CC?
>
> GIM>> Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We've added notes in
>> Sections 3.2 and 3.3. As CC and CV are used in DetNet forwarding sub-layer,
>> PREOF does not affect them. Section 3.4 notes that route tracing, i.e.,
>> ping and traceroute, can be used to discover PREOF capabilities. Other
>> sections added text referencing CC, CV, and ping/traceroute. Do these
>> changes clearly describe the interaction between PREOF and OAM?
>
>   - "information is collected and sent using the DetNet Controller
>
> Plane" - isn't it collected by the management plane? It may be worth
>
> clarifying in the document the exact breakdown between the management
>
> plane and the controller plane in the context of this document.
>
> GIM>> Section 4.4.2 of RFC 8655 defines the DetNet Controller Plane as the
>> aggregation of Management and Control Planes. Thus, based on the
>> interpretation of the DetNet Controller Plane, the management plane plays
>> the essential role in collecting OAM information.
>
>
>> - Section 8 - Security Considerations:
>
>   You may want to mention that specifically, the security
>
> considerations of OAM in the context of DetNet are discussed in
>
> Section 9 of [RFC 9055].
>
> GIM>> Thank you for the suggestion. Done.
>
>
>> Nits:
>
> GIM>> Thank you for your careful review and pointing out these nits. Fixed
>> them all. Please see in the attached diff.
>
> - Section 2.1 [RFC8655]  ==> Section 2.1 of [RFC8655]
>
> - Maintenance Intermediate endPoint (MIP) ==> [according to IEEE
>
> 802.1] Maintenance Intermediate Point (MIP)
>
> - In-band OAM is an active OAM is considered ==> In-band OAM is an
>
> active OAM considered
>
> - therefore, PM is a key topic ==> please add "PM" to the acronym list
>
> GIM>> Done

> - DetNet service sub-layer functions using a sequence number. ==>
>
> DetNet service sub-layer functions use sequence numbers for PREOF.
>
> GIM>> Agree, thank you.

> - Control Plane / Controller Plane - please be consistent, or clarify
>
> the difference between the two terms.
>
> GIM>> As noted above, the DetNet Controller Plane is viewed as the
>> aggregation of the management and control planes. The reference to the
>> control plane is specific to the use of the distributed control model.
>
> - perfromence metris ==> performance metrics
- systemto ==> system to
GIM>> Done and done.
- downstream MEP ==> the term is used without definition
 GIM>> Updated text as follows:

   1.   It MUST be possible to initiate a DetNet OAM session from a MEP
        located at a DetNet node towards MEP(s) downstream from that
        DetNet node within the given domain at a particular DetNet sub-
        layer.