Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-10
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review Date: 2021-11-19
IETF LC End Date: over
Intended Status: Informational
Summary:
Choose from this list…
- I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.
Comments:
- I find the document to be useful. It is well structured and easy to
read. Since the aim of the document is to clarify the taxonomy and
framework, I hope to see more drafts to refer to it when describing network
telemetry. I have a few suggestions of things that are missing, some
queries and nits that are easy to resolve, and hopefully improve the
document further.
Minor Issues:
- Well almost Major :)
- Something that I find missing in the document is that the network
controller could be a valuable source of network telemetry as well.
Consider a PCE, the controller could be a source of network-wide
data, such
as the association between network paths, cumulative network metrics,
global network utilization, etc. The document is currently very
network-device-specific (as a data source). My suggestion would be to
handle the centralized controller either as a separate section or part of
the control plane and management plane telemetry.
- Something else that I find missing is the multi-domain aspects. You
could mark it as out of scope or better yet do talk about it how there
could possibly be a hierarchy and recursive nature in your framework to
handle multi-domain. Currently, it is mentioned in passing while
describing
data fusion in section 3.4.
- Query
- Section 4.1
- In figure 2, why MIB is mentioned in the management plane only,
why not control plane when various control plane protocols have MIBs?
Similarly, there are forwarding statistics MIB that might work in the
forwarding plane? Also, add SNMP and ASN.1(?) in the table
corresponding to
MIB.
- What is a ‘mirror’? Maybe expand it or put a * and expand it at
the bottom
- All external data coming from gRPC only?
- Others
- Section 6
- The Independent management network is mentioned only in passing.
Shouldn’t there be a much stronger recommendation for this instead?
Nits:
- From IDNits
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out has been published
as RFC 8671
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark has been
published as RFC 8889
== Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-10
- Section 2
- Add reference for
- GPB - https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers
- IOAM - draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data
- NetFlow - reference is incorrect, it should be RFC 3954
- SNMP - for the sake of covering all versions, we should mention
v3 as well - RFC 3414
- Section 3.3
- Add reference for
- Syslog - RFC 5424
- sFlow - RFC 3176
- Expand PSAMP - Packet Sampling
- Section 4.1
- The list of 6 angles in the text and the 1st column in the table do
not match.
- Expand ASICs - Application-Specific Integrated Circuits
- Section 4.1.1
- The use of the term “server” can be confusing here. Would you
consider using “data source”?
- Section 4.1.2
- I am unaware of the term “video fluency”. Is it a term of art that
I am unaware of?
- Add reference to Y.1731 - “ITU-T, “OAM Functions and Mechanisms for
Ethernet based networks”, ITU-T Y.1731, 2006.”
- Section A.1.2
- gNMI reference is marked as [I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec]
whereas, in the main body, it is [gnmi] “gNMI - gRPC Network Management
Interface”,
https://github.com/openconfig/reference/tree/master/rpc/gnmi. Any
reason for different references?
- same for gRPC!
- Section A.3.6
- Expand L2VPN, NVO3, BIER, SFC, DETNET
- Is there anything about SR and Multicast worth adding to the list?
Thanks!
Dhruv
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
