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

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

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.
- 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?
  - "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.
- 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].

Nits:
- 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
- DetNet service sub-layer functions using a sequence number. ==>
DetNet service sub-layer functions use sequence numbers for PREOF.
- Control Plane / Controller Plane - please be consistent, or clarify
the difference between the two terms.
- perfromence metris ==> performance metrics
- systemto ==> system to
- downstream MEP ==> the term is used without definition