Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04

Donald Eastlake <> Tue, 16 February 2021 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D783A1182; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:51:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IYVOXlhDQm3o; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F1A43A1185; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p15so9570859ilq.8; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:51:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FfJsA/BOopO7kv7SHSVT+9DAnPmqBXqgfu+1dgCVhe0=; b=VEQzHVhYu6BV4fTDh5SkFYktYgkxkbaJy2flp9SNAyVY3UZTo5XAFtuDwSKSBTuq9q aOAkTpC4+4bpsm5bSsXqt9xmawYds4OILQhgcr+2yYYmtFogbZlradSK5Qqn/wN9pLSr hIcrC8VzdzB8BUu8BMP8XgPOGmpb8WS3TBlHNYkHJlUWg1P2idBntgbojnKrqxBZMDYp PN0LAC17pIY64uX+ammi5oo6bQxCTrDCDIGP9zEZr4Wi86ibFruTztdBWsn/q0L9sCcq 3HiC/ykPSjczkMRr5lukRy4+TkLBXOPfXMoXiyhH3nHZ3vL8UWZ2kMk91VdGo/K7rVvY LDdg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FfJsA/BOopO7kv7SHSVT+9DAnPmqBXqgfu+1dgCVhe0=; b=ieZpsO8EN0P0ti0ZozTgWzIr1/mQ6oHAmVZsmpPOgGl2VYZaAPRcAgV1h9vIUyt8oT nGzU9qFx4DHMDQVViHJ3frA3XIjC3g5OhpTjrtbY7uNtUdcqN7+cf2UV9ew+ysNDhQDw i2eW/E3aB7cRHrQjFVSvx0Bq0PeaR3U0ujrKp1apRahq1+0zqa30WYnf+f2AoPjV1HJn PveMTGnUggTGYPzhPelSEy/3ghuAjZSqnKeQCsVHfpS1pQWP3yR3rGBjjRbgCjazABlm 71MK5HcMVZJmsaSejrVDZLvL/Q7f3xGHKiKCwRQbtfai59/SRFkyPNk+VKxJXR5q3cr+ ttEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531YTNvEljkAPGjYMeRYDtBXSxC5hoEWvGTBzsRQmVxoIA71fDaT t2wFkmamISG2R+pQQy1HSA2BgncZsoKNv3pwBxc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygNHqP744JkCeRfDdh2ye9cCE2p2vxHBablruHI/IAxcpmIk/onDcxXk021rTq0sjGRfnlvO3b0jGB7sojtus=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1347:: with SMTP id k7mr18518051ilr.168.1613512309757; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:51:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Donald Eastlake <>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:51:38 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: David Black <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 21:51:54 -0000

Hi David,

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 10:46 AM David Black via Datatracker
<> wrote:
> Reviewer: David Black
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
> discussion list for information.
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> if you reply to or forward this review.
> I did not notice any transport-related issues, but found a few editorial nits
> that could use some attention:
> The draft covers only the F (fault) and P (performance) aspects of the
> FCAPS set of management/maintenance domains.  It might be useful to
> say something about where to look for requirements-related information
> on the other three.

For Configuration and Security (beyond the Security Considerations
section of the document), perhaps this document should refer readers
to the standards for the detailed OAM protocol in use. On Accounting,
I think it is pretty much out of scope for this document.

> Please double-check whether the IEEE 802.1Q reference is up to date.

This won't be published as an RFC for months. I think whether the IEEE
802.1Q reference is completely up to date and in the format preferred
by the IEEE is an excellent thing for the RFC Editor to check as they
normally do.  I will update the year from 2014 to 2018.

> Please explain what P nodes are in Figures 1 and 2.


> Figures 1 and 2 include four OAM layers, of which this draft is only
> concerned with two, Service OAM and Network OAM.  Section 2.1
> should indicate that these two layers are the focus of the draft.


 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA