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

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

Thanks for your review.

The processing details were embedded in the Section 4.
We brought them up in the Section 3 and also added additional normative language in Section 4.

We have been maintaining the latest version of the draft in the Github.

However, we also posted the latest diffs, which addresses your comments as follows:


  *   In the new revision, we have added normative text at the beginning of 3.1.1 where O-bit is defined.
  *   Sections 3.3 and 3.4 adds normative texts for OAM SIDs.
  *   4.1.2 and 4.2.2 further adds additional normative text for Ping and traceroute use-cases, respectively.

Latest version is kept in the Github and also uploaded as https://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 10:01 PM
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>, 6man WG <[e-mail]>, SPRING WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>

Sorry, minor typo.  SRH, not NSH, in the 4th paragraph.
Joel

On 12/5/2019 9:42 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The normative behavior for the bits in various places says that the
packet is punted to the control process.  In and of itself, that is fine.
However, in order for that to be useful, the control process has to know
what to do with the packet when it gets there.  In the classic case of
router redirect, this is coupled with definition of various content to
be processed by the router control logic.
In the case of this document, there is no normative definition of what
the control process is to do with the packet.  And particularly since in
many of the cases described the packet that is punted still has an SRH,
normal packet processing would simply reach the same "punt" step.  With
nowhere to punt it.
You asssume in the examples that some forms of parsing that bypass the
NSH will take place.  But processing does not take place by instinct or
magic.  It takes place because we write RFCs that describe what has to
happen.  Without some definition of the required parsing, and I believe
(although I am guessing due to the lack of description) we also need
some normative description of what the control process is required to do.
Note that in most OAM, we define the behavior that is required, and then
indicate where it is permitted to use the control plane to achieve it.
This results in a clear specification, and implementation flexibility.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/5/2019 9:34 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
Hi Joel,

I did not understand your comment.

Can you please point to specific text in the draft for which the draft
needs to define normative behavior for the "node punt processor look
past the SRH and make determinations based on the content."?

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

*From: *ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Joel M. Halpern"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
*Date: *Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 4:37 PM
*To: *Ole Troan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, 6man WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
SPRING WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
*Subject: *Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>

I re-read this draft, and I am afraid it is currently under-specified.

In order for the various examples to work, there is assumed behavior by

the processor to which packets are punted.  I could not find where this

normative behavior is described explicitly.  It appears that the

behavior requires that the node "punt processor" look past the SRH and

make determinations based on the content.  This needs to be described

explicitly.  And it needs some discussion of why it is legitimate to

look past the SRH when the SRH does not show SL=0.

Yours,

Joel

On 12/4/2019 3:53 PM, 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

    [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>

    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

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

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

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>

Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

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

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