Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Fri, 21 February 2020 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB21120236; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:41:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=BNLUwHkx; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=W4SQoylh
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kOhMhQ-mtWNL; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:41:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A36A120052; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:41:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=250968; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1582263691; x=1583473291; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=YgMsQzoY0bxb6wnaWvnE11J4JtmLr4eXpCwEr/n8Owc=; b=BNLUwHkxTG0hslvF0ICbLwn51DCh56qF45Ad/YVKAglrmWHpqrghWXdc 729lZjzh8xfJntKuZ17T2dQbB8YpcIg9DXPP2FSqu5s2lxa74MX7VQaR7 6sHXZL0MK+GWwPF+uL6x8p4DvcjaNKQAcThI9v+gDxkBO9i+E72Hn1Jf0 E=;
X-Files: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam.txt, draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03-loa-comments-ZA.txt : 41903, 49812
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:4KTRJR0oVeb0V9FHsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxGCt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8TgZdYBUERoMiMEYhQslVdyMDUzTJ//xZCt8F8NHBxdo
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: 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
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,467,1574121600"; d="txt'?scan'208,217";a="447512987"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 21 Feb 2020 05:41:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 01L5fKHL022615 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 05:41:20 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:41:19 -0600
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:41:17 -0500
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:41:17 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hsCRuI1V90/qbBztGe1YY9R14opj9y239J4HKZdpX+iSLCavXMS/+mWM0twUIuhL64YA7+ak5GQg81xf+l4FL1Yd0OI4ZiQR/7iByrF5dQMoCnKq4Y6T9RH5CXl7RgWV6W8hEf9Yp7rzgN/9Wy7aHEOYuiEqnUdJn5GzU8HIc0/XEZBFsghBlEFWdiMS8ofAfH4u34x20QVFB0kWpEYoIoLaV60YJOa41uVrnbB0rRtmzMBTcR3zsHN7E8yTFqnOOwavY0dOj2nUXJi+LYJugKDNABBJiWkkL45e0FsGbvPFbFJK5Hofu905gs9u4+IDUoLA5bCNGyFwwJh/jA00QQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=piV4aF87US/JorrM7cQSO0zaHIIL9Fxq1QxV8cXVwqc=; b=aVReWndF9yMGES33eyyqaYsDN7Zrei8j3499Uh+w3q4JUAXak9h1B9BdJQ2AX6NRABr2THuGFTmYjuQwSRrYDnCm/9BMeCf0G/EtpNgAMYsTA5M2QtVm20dIdGueppIrheu9qYF+wAUhh7+JxXJ0l4GbeedEFi/U6emthMWz+QukHjAO02lqDEIsK5uDXzZt2H3SBujDjiTXqQMXr7Nas2sRB7ij+NGan9quNiRJa9NfTOdX3hT9ELZC0dxH0sm9KAMgA8ldX8v7aS99BXPfkuewQX+50GYWPB4O8+8ba6GNlkAoUetaOgwTsXS5Sdl/t4CXkbyn7sY3+RX4oM5lFg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=piV4aF87US/JorrM7cQSO0zaHIIL9Fxq1QxV8cXVwqc=; b=W4SQoylhR4rG7U1b2CTvAr7aIliMPxc7Vxskey0IAt93jdOK5Q/TDgrpJz3bS7axbDNiHNecLHFvowOydND65GPuKqsPtBJ/7RL/uZEbMTyV30kEuSjuCoK7cT6TlPSraU7LFsw+dij3djQXmQetVW6BcVJzDTB94e2Tu0OzB3Y=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3710.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.252.147) by MN2PR11MB4239.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.39.84) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2729.29; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 05:41:14 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3710.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8c1b:b94:5d2e:446b]) by MN2PR11MB3710.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8c1b:b94:5d2e:446b%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2750.016; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 05:41:14 +0000
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
CC: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
Thread-Index: AQHVquT4fiT0mGN0ekCReZDXMAlj3afzd/OAgADJlICAARyrgIAA66eA///SVQCAAKQ5gIACJK8AgCuYEICAAMxLAA==
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 05:41:13 +0000
Message-ID: <C8900892-D5E1-4023-9309-BA695F739709@cisco.com>
References: <ECC21DA8-0156-41D2-921E-177389D3C904@employees.org> <09adcd59-13ae-448b-6a48-5e7471dbd121@pi.nu> <15d6aa7b-b786-57c7-2014-1c76edbc4e77@gmail.com> <82A1B481-B638-4D9B-AC90-A9195CA531F5@cisco.com> <8b407450-0bc5-502b-2907-e05efebc2e84@pi.nu> <3A01D745-7B1A-420B-9A6C-D9A35AA84174@cisco.com> <2d02954d-af78-8d3d-dbcf-5eb989157b47@pi.nu> <842FEA33-2203-4862-9DE0-E963956C3230@cisco.com> <E894124D-4BD4-46D3-B81A-C54F42B3C8CF@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E894124D-4BD4-46D3-B81A-C54F42B3C8CF@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.22.0.200209
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=zali@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0cc:1002::229]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bd586a37-0371-4d6a-ec74-08d7b690aa67
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4239:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB4239DB8CA6194F049777BCB2DE120@MN2PR11MB4239.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0320B28BE1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(396003)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(376002)(189003)(199004)(54906003)(9326002)(107886003)(8936002)(66946007)(76116006)(8676002)(81166006)(81156014)(91956017)(71200400001)(66446008)(66476007)(2906002)(4326008)(66556008)(66576008)(64756008)(6486002)(6512007)(86362001)(4001150100001)(33656002)(478600001)(186003)(110136005)(53546011)(6506007)(36756003)(30864003)(66574012)(5660300002)(316002)(2616005)(966005)(579004)(559001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4239; H:MN2PR11MB3710.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: NlWRM+ZDuKf5U+wQSwAJ2YxeAOl0o3xrwqOMonLRwsAmJ2JSJd2ulQnYoWZya2q5fQ6/steA4m0MGyrSr4/tva8SlCwKbTO6zTReG7KT2UfIKjAoaTnwnMV87IcgbDYG5itXUlr77NwenCVoC8YUqOewyG2XiAxprSO3tEVXZlo=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_C8900892D5E140239309BA695F739709ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bd586a37-0371-4d6a-ec74-08d7b690aa67
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Feb 2020 05:41:14.2030 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Lt8OkU1JDgvKsoPv1swE4kia0hNFXcJloHg6ObBGiFhTM+YCGshTRfcOYUquDJO6
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4239
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/2se0pMWLikQqwPpw1x35VpVAjxU>
Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 05:41:42 -0000

Hi Loa,

We have addressed most of your comments in the enclosed .txt file.
We have also uploaded updated XML file to the 6man/OAM repository (but please use the enclosed .txt file for diffs. Somehow “Compare Editor's Copy to Working Group Draft” is pointing to older diffs.

Details of how your comments are addressed are listed in the following as well as in the enclosed updated diffs file that you shared earlier.
We plan to address the remaining comments very soon.

Many thanks again for detailed review.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

How comments were addressed:

[LA1]The Abstract seems to be a bit ìbareî, it should be a stand-alone text, this seem to pre-suppose an high level of familiarity with the topic.

[ZA] rewrite TBD.

[LA2]Dataplane or data pale,  us one both not both.
[ZA] Changed.

[LA3]îsomeî, this begs for an explanation of what has been left out and why.

[LA4]There is an RFC 7322, please make sure that you are following these guidelines.
S for the placement of the ìRequirement Languageî, the style guide says that it should be placed as a top level section after the Introduction, however not even the RFC Editor follow that guidance, the Requirement Language are most often placed as a subsection of the introduction.

[ZA] Changed the text to follow the RFC7322 guideline.

[LA5]There is a new template for this, BCP BCP 14 which consists of twp RFCs ([RFC2119] [RFC8174]) should be referenced.

[ZA] Reference to [RFC8174] added.

[LA6]Thos is very sparse, and it is also a direct copy og the abstract (or the other way around). I donít think this is allowed.

[ZA] rewrite TBD.

[LA7]I think you could remove this header and make îAbbreviationsî section 1.1

[ZA] Fixed.

[LA8]RFC 8402 define this is as îSegemetns Leftî

[ZA] Good catch! Fixed.

[LA9]Also this document uses îSegments Leftî

[ZA] Fixed.

[LA10]Admittedly the topology is simple, but the figure could be much clearer.
I agree that it is a good idea to define a simple topology and use it throughout the document.

[ZA] Thanks. Any suggestion to simplify is welcomed.

[LA11]This could be a good place to explain the use of înode kî.

[ZA] Moved.

[LA12]Probably not a very strong point, ìclassicî is already a bit ambivalent, and will be more so as the time goes by. Iíd say just drop it, or make it ìnon-SRv6 IPv6 nodesî.

[ZA] Fixed.

[LA13]îNode kî is not in the reference topology.

[ZA] Node k is used to refer to all nodes collectively (e.g., to define the IPv6 addressing scheme for them.). IMO this should be fine.

[LA14]If you are going to push the link number into the IPv6 address, it would be better to start numbering from zero.

[ZA] There is no node 0 in the topology. The addressing example is based on node names. IMO this should be fine.

[LA15]This three is redundant, the î3:4î in the two previous positions uniquely identify the link,

[ZA] Actually it is not redundant as the last :3 represents the link address at node 3 side. IMO this should be fine.

[LA16]After going through this a number of time Iím convinced that this is correct. However, it takes quite an effort to go through a rather cryptic text. Is it possible to clarify.

[ZA] Thanks for your feedback. Actually there was a typo and I fixed it.

[LA17]This îS1î means îSID1î, why do we need the ìSî as a special notation when we already have ìSIDî

[ZA] Si is a notation that relates to a topology or service segment. S[j] represents the SID pointed by the SL field in the SRH. S[j] is like a index in sid-list in the SRH. IMO this should be fine.

[LA18]When we were specifying MPLS-TP we diid a lot of OAM work, concepts like MIPs and MEPs were introduced. Do these concepts have any bearing on SRv6 OAM?

[ZA] Thanks for your feedback. SRv6 OAM is in-line with OAM in IPv6 networks, which are not of transport nature.

[LA19]This is a double reference to the same document and strictly note necessary The format of the second reference is also wrong and does not appear in the reference list.

[ZA] Fixed.

[LA20]Well, if you do you need a subsection in the IANA Consideration. The flag field is defined in ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, but it is still a draft.
As this document stands now you canít find the IANA allocations. Partly depending on that IANA not yet done the allocations, but also because if they were done there is no clear reference to the registry. SRH.Flags is not the name of the registry.

[ZA] Fixed.

[LA21]The notation îSRH.Flagsî is invented here, right?  draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, and the SRV6 Networking programming draft (which is referenced for terminology) simply talks about SRH or ìSRH Flagsî.

[ZA] The SRH.Flags is defined in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header. The IANA registry for SRH.Flags is requested in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header. This document just defined a flag to identify OAM packets.

[LA22]Why start with bit 2, why not 0 or 7?

[ZA] There is a long history. This O-flag flag were originally defined in the
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-11.
During the LC review, it was moved to OAM draft. But the position has been already defined and used by the ASICs. Hence, keeping the same bit position.

[LA23]We are allocating a flag from a registry defined in draft-ietf-6man-segment- routing-header. Since this is still in IESG review it will not be possible progress this document until the routing header document is in the RFC Editors queue, and it canít become an RFC until the document defining the registry is also an RFC.
I think the SRH flags registry should be properly named here, "Segment Routing Header Flags"

[ZA] Yes, the SRH flags registry is named as "Segment Routing Header Flags". Please see IANA section in the new revision.

[LA24]I think the should be either OAM, Operation Administration and Maintenance; or O&M, OAM and Management.
See RFC 6291.

[ZA] Fixed.

[LA25]Note: Chapter 3 is well written and easy to understand

[ZA] Will fix it - TBD.

[LA26]Comment added after reading the entire section, the procedures and mechanisms described is as far as I can judge well and clearly documented.

[ZA] Thanks.

[LA27]An Extreme nit, but I would call this îPing in SRv6 Networksî

[ZA] Fixed

[LA28]I said it before ñ I donít like ìClassicî, and I donít thnk it is necessary or contribute significantly.

[ZA] We will think about renaming. TBD.

[LA29]I think this procedures is well and clearly documented.

[ZA] Thanks.

[LA30]As far as I can see this works.

[ZA] Thanks.

[LA31]We might want a reference.

[ZA] This should be fine as this is well know.

[LA32]At this point I start think of SRv6 as îconnection oriented.

[ZA] SRv6 enables source routing.

[LA33]I see no immediate technical problems here.

[ZA] Thanks

[LA34]I defer to the security experts on this section.

[ZA] Yes that is part of the review process.

[LA35]You need text in this section describing the allocation of the O-flag.

[ZA] Fixed.

[LA36]What are the registration procedures???
If I understand correctly we want to take one of the unused ICMPv6 Type Numbers and create the ìICMP Type Numbers ñ SRv6 OAM messagesî registry.
But with all due respect the text is a bit tangled.

[ZA] Fixed the text. Thanks for the good catch.

[LA37]This allocation is in itself not problematic, but the registries are not yet in place., weíll have to wait for the network programming draft to progress.

[ZA] Agreed!


Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 12:30 PM
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>

Hi Loa,

Sorry, I could not get back to your other comments, earlier.
I am starting to look into all outstanding comments.
It will be great if you could send me copy of the word document diffs (privately).
But either way, your comments are quite clear.

Many Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 6:46 PM
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>

Loa,

Many thanks.
The comments in your email has been addressed in latest version in the GitHub.
We are working to address the rest of your comments.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 5:03 AM
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>

Zafar,

Tnx - 1 down 36 to go!

Actually a bit more with the NITs output. Can you take a look at the
long lines next, it should be easy edits.

The first two long lines are in this paragraph:

248              S01.1. IF SRH.Flags.O-flag is set and local configuration permits
249                     O-flag processing THEN
250                     a. Make a copy of the packet.
251                     b. Send the copied packet, along with a timestamp
252                        to the OAM process.      ;; Ref1
253              Ref1: An implementation SHOULD copy and record the timestamp as
soon as
254              possible during packet processing. Timestamp is not carried in
the packet
255              forwarded to the next hop.

Line 253 has four characters "n as" outside the allowed 72 characters
Line 254 has the word "packet" outside the allowed 72 characters

This is inside the figure and I think that you can left shift the
enire figure, otherwise I don't see a problem with introducing line
breaks.

In figure 4:

639              > traceroute srv6 B:4:C52 via segment-list B:2:C31

641              Tracing the route to SID function B:4:C52
642               1  2001:DB8:1:2:21 0.512 msec 0.425 msec 0.374 msec
643                  SRH: (B:4:C52, B:4:OTP, B:2:C31; SL=2)
644               2  2001:DB8:2:3:31 0.721 msec 0.810 msec 0.795 msec
645                  SRH: (B:4:C52, B:4:OTP, B:2:C31; SL=1)
646               3  2001:DB8:3:4::41 0.921 msec 0.816 msec 0.759 msec
647                  SRH: (B:4:C52, B:4:OTP, B:2:C31; SL=1)

649                 Figure 4 A sample output for hop-by-hop traceroute to a SID
function

Line 649 has "tion" of "SID function" (fig numbring) outside the allowed
72 characters, again should be easy to left shif or introduce line
breaks.

The reason I want to address this first is that it is easy, but also
a show stopper.

And last, thugh I hate to add late comments - abbreviations, I have not
gone through the entire document to look for unexpanded abbreviations,
but there is at least one "NPU". Which I read as Network Processing Unit,
what confuses me is that it is not in the RFC Editors abbreviation list
at all. I think there is an action point for the wg chairs to have it
introduced, and for the authros to expand, as well as going through the
document an d make sure that everthing that should be expanded is.

/Loa

On 22/01/2020 13:15, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
Hi Loa,
Many thanks for your follow-up.
Based on your feedback, we have updated the version in the GitHub.
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
*From: *Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>>
*Date: *Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 9:59 PM
*To: *"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org<mailto:otroan@employees.org>>, 6man WG
<ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
*Cc: *6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:6man-chairs@ietf.org>>
*Subject: *Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for
<draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
Zafar,
Thanks for addressing this. However one thing remains. The text is now:
"There MAY be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID."
I don't think there is a need for requirement language in that sentence,
I read it as straightforward English:
"There may be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID."
Would do very well.
Can you explain the need for requirement language?
/Loa
On 22/01/2020 01:55, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
     Hi Brian,
     Many thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.
     The working copy of the new version in the repository addresses your/
     Loa’s comment highlighted in your email.
     https://github.com/ietf-6man/srv6-oam
     Thanks
     Regards … Zafar
     *From: *spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>
     <mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org><mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org%3e>> on behalf of Brian E Carpenter
     <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com><mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com%3e>>
     *Organization: *University of Auckland
     *Date: *Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:57 PM
     *To: *Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu> <mailto:loa@pi.nu><mailto:loa@pi.nu%3e>>, Ole Troan
     <otroan@employees.org<mailto:otroan@employees.org> <mailto:otroan@employees.org><mailto:otroan@employees.org%3e>>, 6man
     WG <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org><mailto:ipv6@ietf.org%3e>>, SPRING WG
     <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> <mailto:spring@ietf.org><mailto:spring@ietf.org%3e>>
     *Cc: *6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:6man-chairs@ietf.org> <mailto:6man-chairs@ietf.org><mailto:6man-chairs@ietf.org%3e>>
     *Subject: *Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for
     <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
     To be clear about one of the points in the review, MAY NOT is not
     allowed by RFC2119 because it is totally ambiguous in English (since it
     can mean either "must not" or "might not"). In any case the phrase "MAY
     or MAY NOT" is not of any normative value. It presumably simply means
     "MAY" in all cases in this draft.
     Regards
           Brian
     On 20-Jan-20 20:54, Loa Andersson wrote:
           WG,
           I have reviewed the entire document.
           First, I'm not an IPv6 expert.
           As far as I can see the sued on
           I have not used github, I had a couple of attempts to learn
     the tools,
           but so far I have failed.
           I have instead done what I use to do, use the review tool with
     Word.
           Since I sometimes have a pushback on the docx-format I save
     the result
           as a .txt-file. Drawback is that all comment show up as
     refrences to a
           list at the end of the document. But you can't get everything.
           /Loa
           PS gives this output for this draft; it is quite a lot and in
     itself are
           so much that it is worth sending it bck to the authors and
     asking them
           to fix it. Was the noits tool checked at all before starting
     the wglc?
           idnits 2.16.02
           /tmp/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt:
                Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF
     Trust (see
     https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   No issues found here.
                Checking nits according to
     https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   No issues found here.
                Checking nits according to
     https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the
     document, the
           longest one
                   being 6 characters in excess of 72.
                == There are 5 instances of lines with
     non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
           addresses
                   in the document.  If these are example addresses, they
           should be
           changed.
                Miscellaneous warnings:

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors
     Copyright Line
           does not
                   match the current year
                -- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'MAY
     NOT'
           is not
                   defined in RFC 2119.  If it is intended as a requirements
           expression, it
                   should be rewritten using one of the combinations
     defined in
           RFC 2119;
                   otherwise it should not be all-uppercase.
                == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119
           requirements
           text,
                   is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be
     used.  Consider
           using 'MUST
                   NOT' instead (if that is what you mean).
                   Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:
                   To perform ICMPv6 ping to a target SID an echo request
           message is
                   generated by the initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP
     SID in the
                   segment-list of the SRH immediately preceding the
     target SID.
           There MAY
                   or MAY NOT be additional segments preceding the END.OP/
           END.OTP SID.
                == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119
           requirements
           text,
                   is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be
     used.  Consider
           using 'MUST
                   NOT' instead (if that is what you mean).
                   Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:
                   To traceroute a target SID a probe message is
     generated by the
                   initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the
     segment-list of
           the SRH
                   immediately preceding the target SID.  There MAY or
     MAY NOT be
           additional
                   segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID.
                -- The document date (December 18, 2019) is 32 days in the
           past.  Is this
                   intentional?
                Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using
     normative
           references
                   to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
                == Missing Reference: 'SL' is mentioned on line 190, but not
           defined
                -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on
     line 191
                -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on
     line 191
                -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on
     line 192
                == Missing Reference: 'RFC7011' is mentioned on line 230, but
           not defined
                == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext' is
           mentioned on line
                   241, but not defined
                == Missing Reference: 'RFC792' is mentioned on line 701, but
           not defined
                == Missing Reference: 'RFC 8403' is mentioned on line
     660, but not
           defined
                == Unused Reference: 'RFC0792' is defined on line 823, but no
           explicit
                   reference was found in the text
                == Unused Reference: 'RFC8403' is defined on line 843, but no
           explicit
                   reference was found in the text
                == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
                   draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06
                   Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 5
           comments
           (--).
                   Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed
           information
           about
                   the items above.
           On 05/12/2019 04:53, Ole Troan wrote:
               Hello,
                    As agreed in the working group session in Singapore, this
               message starts a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on
               advancing:
                    Title    : Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
               (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
                    Author   : Z. Ali, C. Filsfils, S. Matsushima, D.
     Voyer, M.
               Chen
                    Filename : draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-02
                    Pages    : 23
                    Date     : 2019-11-20
     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/
               as a Proposed Standard.
               Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing
               this document should be directed to the mailing list.
               Editorial suggestions can be sent to the author. This last
     call
               will end on the 18th of December 2019.
               To improve document quality and ensure that bugs are caught as
               early as possible, we would require at least
               two reviewers to do a complete review of the document.  Please
               let the chairs know if you are willing to be a reviewer.
               The last call will be forwarded to the spring working group,
               with discussion directed to the ipv6 list.
               Thanks,
               Bob & Ole, 6man co-chairs

     --------------------------------------------------------------------
               IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
     ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
               Administrative Requests:
     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

     --------------------------------------------------------------------

     --------------------------------------------------------------------
           IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
     ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
           Administrative Requests:
     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

     --------------------------------------------------------------------
     _______________________________________________
     spring mailing list
     spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> <mailto:spring@ietf.org> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--
Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu> <mailto:loa@pi.nu>
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

--


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64