On Nov 16, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear WG Chairs, et. al, > in their presentation in Singapore the iOAM team pointed to interest in using > the extra header right after the GENEVE encapsulation. I've looked at their > proposal and believe that the OOAM header, as proposed in the > draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header, may suit iOAM as well as active OAM in > GENEVE. With that said, would the WG consider adoption of > draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header and draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv?
In draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv, I don't see a way an arbitrary-length payload can be sent, which is necessary to ensure the path MTU is sufficient to carry actual traffic. Is there some other way to meet that need, perhaps with the "TLVs" field in Figure 1? In draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv, its Security Considerations says it is 'highly unlikely' for an attacker to know the sender's Handle and Sequence number. However, the I-D provides no guidance for how those values should be securely generated. The document should provide some guidance such as that the Handle be a PRNG value, and perhaps also that the sequence number should start at a random value. In draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv, it doesn't normatively say how the sequence number is supposed to be handled. Does it *need* to increase monotonically, or can it be treated more like a transaction number (thus allowing random values to be assigned and mapped to the originating packet as desired). Are there interoperability issues with an implementation handling this differently -- imagine if sender has one idea of what to do, but receiver or an on-path packet analyzer has a different expectation. (I adjusted the subject line to reflect the call-for-adoption that I am responding to. It was odd to see a call for adoption mention one I-D, but in the text it is calling for adoption of two I-Ds.) -d > > Regards, > Greg > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) > <[email protected]> wrote: > This email begins a two week poll for adoption of > draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03 in the NVO3 working group. > > > > Please review the draft and send any comments to the NVO3 list. > > Please also indicate whether you support adoption of the draft as an NVO3 > working group document. > > > > Simultaneously, we are also poling for any IPR that may apply to the draft. > > > > Authors and contributors, are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft? > > > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see > RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? > > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to > > this email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant > > IPR. The response needs to be sent to the NVO3 WG mailing list. The > > document will not advance to the next stage until a response > > has been received from each author and each contributor. > > > > This poll closes on Friday 14th April 2017. > > > > Regards > > > > Matthew and Sam > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
