Re: [sfc] [ippm] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/

[Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>]

Why do we need to call that out explicitly in this draft? Isn't that part
of header processing anyway?

Thanks
Shwetha

On Wed, May 4, 2022, 6:24 AM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Can we have just a sentence or two saying that if there are multiple iOAM
> options, the SFF must check all of them for relevance and act on all
> relevant ones?
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
> On 5/3/2022 8:26 PM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote:
>
> Hi Greg, Joel,
>
> The purpose of these options are different. Reiterating the use cases
> described in the draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment draft : hop by hop tracing
> related options are -pre-allocated, incremental,direct export. The
> edge-to-edge option is not collecting trace but metrics at the edge and
> helps in correlation e.g sequence number is inserted and used to identify
> packet loss rate. The proof-of-transit option is used to prove that the
> packet has traversed the check points in the networks.
> There is also IOAM namespace that is used to collect specific data types
> in trace options and a node can be configured to process trace options with
> a specific namespace, this is useful when we have nodes with varying
> implementation of trace option data types defined.
> Restricting IOAM option in NSH to a specific number will make it difficult
> to deploy. Hence I don't see a need to update the current draft to add any
> of this restrictions. Let's use draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment to
> understand the use cases and deployment modes.
>
> Thanks
> Shwetha
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022, 3:01 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joel,
>> thank you for highlighting this question, I've missed it.
>>
>> As we've discussed earlier, several IOAM trace options have been defined:
>>
>>    - pre-allocated
>>    - incremental
>>    - edge-to-edge
>>    - proof-of-transit
>>    - direct export
>>    - hybrid two-step
>>
>> I cannot find a scenario when using more than one IOAM trace option that
>> could be beneficial, and useful for an operator. I think that if there is
>> no use case, then the restricting number of IOAM trace options used is
>> reasonable and helps implementors in developing interoperable
>> implementations.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 2:42 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> (Sorry, catching up on some emails I missed.)
>>>
>>> If we want to allow multiple iOAM headers (up to the WG) then I think
>>> the document needs to be clear on the meaning.  If there are multiple are
>>> all supposed to be processed, just the top one until something removes it,
>>> a random one of the receivers choice?  (Yes, that last is unlikely.)
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Joel
>>> On 4/27/2022 4:44 AM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Med,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the confirmation and quick review.
>>>
>>> On,
>>>
>>>> This means the new requested TBD_IOAM value will also be a valid next
>>>> protocol. However, I wonder whether IOAM in IOAM in NSH is really something
>>>> you want to have. If not, I suggest the text is updated to exclude it from
>>>> the allowed value in the above excerpt.
>>>
>>> Per earlier discussion in this thread, quoting Frank's mail here for reference:
>>>
>>> In addition, I don’t think that draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh would be the
>>>> appropriate place to discuss and restrict deployment options. E.g., I’m not
>>>> sure why we’d want to restrict a deployment to using a single IOAM header
>>>> only. E.g., one could think of using different headers for different
>>>> namespaces or groups of namespaces for operational reasons. IMHO, such a
>>>> discussion – if we really need it - would belong into
>>>> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment, rather than into a draft that defines the
>>>> encap of IOAM into NSH.
>>>
>>> I think the text on Next Protocol should be as is. We should not add
>>> restrictions on number of IOAM headers that could be added to the packet.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shwetha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:46 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Shwetha, all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The changes look great. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is one specific point not addressed in previous replies. This is
>>>> related to this text:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       Next Protocol:  8-bit unsigned integer that determines the type of
>>>>
>>>>          header following IOAM.  The semantics of this field are
>>>>
>>>>          identical to the Next Protocol field in [RFC8300].
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This means the new requested TBD_IOAM value will also be a valid next protocol. However, I wonder whether IOAM in IOAM in NSH is really something you want to have. If not, I suggest the text is updated to exclude it from the allowed value in the above excerpt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Other than that, I think that the draft is ready to move forward.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Med
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *De :* Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Envoyé :* mercredi 27 avril 2022 10:06
>>>> *À :* James Guichard <[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
>>>> Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]; Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Objet :* Re: [sfc] WGLC for
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NGDq-VFOnDYhCxrwRIz1KbT5hb_RKKqKigks-nyqK1RKq5UgpwytWb7clzmlN3o0X0XBWL0KnE3aQfL7wrrx5ZezQN_YdhHpnETuWA$>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear SFC chairs,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A new version of the draft I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh has been submitted per
>>>> the discussion in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-09
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-09__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NGDq-VFOnDYhCxrwRIz1KbT5hb_RKKqKigks-nyqK1RKq5UgpwytWb7clzmlN3o0X0XBWL0KnE3aQfL7wrrx5ZezQN_YdhFd29kDew$>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can we please progress this draft to IESG if there are no further
>>>> comments?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Shwetha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 6:41 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>>
>>>> thank you for the proposed resolution. I agree with Med, direct
>>>> normative reference to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet seems like the logical
>>>> conclusion of our discussion of the use of the NSH O bit. Please note that
>>>> we're referring to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet in the Active SFC OAM draft,
>>>> e.g.,:
>>>>
>>>> The O bit in NSH MUST be set, according to [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet].
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 4:27 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I prefer we go for an explicit reference to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet
>>>> rather than “any update to RFC8300”. This is consistent with the usage in
>>>> the other OAM draft.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Med
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *De :* Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Envoyé :* jeudi 14 avril 2022 12:06
>>>> *À :* Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
>>>> Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; James Guichard <
>>>> [e-mail]>; Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> *Objet :* Re: [sfc] WGLC for
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!LWQuxxxKpUum5gUoK44-znjehj2YRtlGMOATxfRVSc-7JOrPsk4BA4iP0oLQE4d0rObPhOCG_1iiipywftwMIMOEWh8lJI4$>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Med, Greg,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about this text :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “The O-bit MUST be handled following the rules in and any updates
>>>> to [RFC8300] ."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet  will update RF8300 and there could
>>>> be others in future?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Shwetha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 9:24 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>>
>>>> I believe that the text you've quoted is helpful. I would suggest
>>>> changing references from [RFC8300] to [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet] throughout
>>>> that paragraph.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 7:56 AM Shwetha Bhandari <
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Med,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the details: this is exactly what we had before the latest
>>>> revision:
>>>>
>>>> *4.2 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-06*section-4.2__;Iw!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIpJPfzrvI$>.  IOAM and the use of the NSH O-bit*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    [RFC8300] defines an "O bit" for OAM packets.  Per [RFC8300 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8300__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIpEB5AbbE$>] the O
>>>>
>>>>    bit must be set for OAM packets and must not be set for non-OAM
>>>>
>>>>    packets.  Packets with IOAM data included MUST follow this
>>>>
>>>>    definition, i.e. the O bit MUST NOT be set for regular customer
>>>>
>>>>    traffic which also carries IOAM data and the O bit MUST be set for
>>>>
>>>>    OAM packets which carry only IOAM data without any regular data
>>>>
>>>>    payload.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This was removed as per the discussion in this thread. Please check
>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/srMit5zE8UseNOhxknAw_dqvj6M/
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/srMit5zE8UseNOhxknAw_dqvj6M/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIp-CeLfeA$>
>>>>
>>>> It looks like we are going in a loop here. This definition of SFC OAM
>>>> packet to include the OAM data that comes in inner packets via the next
>>>> protocol header chain is introduced in draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet to update
>>>> the RFC8300.
>>>>
>>>> Jim, What are you thoughts on this? Should we reintroduce the above
>>>> text ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Shwetha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>>>
>>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>>>
>>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>>>
>>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>>>
>>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>>
>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>>>
>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>>
>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ippm mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!KzP7tEXj2r_E1qNyQ90q9rykJ0iG0HA0CecIGBFXEIXiWITYay7wwoC0HbiFfO2GyUarxht3JEY45vcV4uCtZ8Xkud0uv58$>
>>>
>>