Hi Tal,
many thanks for your thorough review of the documents by OOAM DT, greatly
appreciated. Please find my answers and notes in-line and tagged GIM>>. We're
preparing updates to both drafts and will reflect your comments in the coming
updates.
Regards,
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Tal Mizrahi [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 7:20 AM
To: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar);
[email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Comments about Overlay OAM Drafts
Dear Nagendra,
>The comments seems to be missing in the mail. Can you please share the
>same?.
Strange... The comments seem to be visible in the mail archive
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/EPxJQcw9lOAIHV2HkRwNE6GVxAU).
Nevertheless, here goes again:
Comments about draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-00
A general question about the draft: does the draft define requirements for
operators, requirements for vendors, or requirements for IETF working groups?
These are three significantly different scopes, and reading the document I was
not able to assess who the requirements are intended for.
Other comments:
1. Section 3: The term 'UCMP' is defined in Section 3, but not used in the
document.
GIM>> Good catch, will clear
2. The following terms are used in the draft without having been defined:
- 'OAM session'
- 'node'
- 'centralized controller'
- 'FM'
GIM>> While Fault Management is straightforward
3. Section 4.1.1: 'Reverse Defect Indication (RDI)' ==> RDI usually stands
for Remote Defect Indication.
GIM>> Indeed, thank you. Will update.
4. Section 4.1.2: "Overlay OAM MAY support verification of the mapping
between its data plane state and client layer services" - please clarify
further.
GIM>> We intend to provide solutions in the new document. But one use case
discussed in draft-nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute.
5. Section 4.2: the terms 'active' and 'passive' have not been defined in
the current draft (you may want to cite RFC 7799).
Specifically, this clarification is necessary since the term 'passive'
according to RFC 7799 is slightly different than the term 'passive' in
draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-00.
GIM>> Yes, and we are talking about measurement methods that can be used
"almost as passive" and explain the requirements toward the overlay to achieve
such behavior.
6. Section 6 - certainly the OAM requirements have security implications.
For example, OAM protocols may be subject to DoS attacks and to network recon.
Some of these considerations are discussed in RFC 7276.
Comments about draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis-01
1. I believe having an OAM gap analysis draft is a good idea.
GIM>> Thank you.
2. The current draft is still very preliminary, and some of the sections
are still empty.
GIM>> we'll post update before the cut-off date to discuss it in Berlin.
3. Section 1: The introduction of the document goes way beyond the scope
of the title (Gap Analysis). The intro actually defines the baseline of an
Overlay OAM solution. Either this part should be removed from the document, or
the scope of the document should be redefined.
GIM>> I think it may justified as we list existing IETF OAM protocols. Though
we may move them out of the Introduction and into the new section.
4. Section 3.3: this section is unclear, and should probably be rephrased.
The section discusses both in-band telemetry and passive monitoring, and it is
not clear whether the two are related or not.
GIM>> We've discussed the telemetry and it could be collected using active OAM,
i.e. using injected OAM packets, or using passive-like method. Interestingly to
discussion in RFC 7799, telemetry collection may use methods that could be
characterized as hybrid methods as well.
5. Section 5: it looks like this text was copied from another draft, and
is not applicable to this document.
GIM>> Indeed, we've removed it in the working version. Contributions are
welcome and appreciated.
Cheers,
Tal.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 5:16 PM
>To: Tal Mizrahi; [email protected];
>draft- [email protected]; [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Comments about Overlay OAM Drafts
>
>Hi Tal,
>
>The comments seems to be missing in the mail. Can you please share the
>same?.
>
>Thanks,
>Nagendra
>
>On 6/26/16, 4:12 AM, "Tal Mizrahi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dear OOAM Authors,
>>
>>I have read the two OOAM drafts, and I have some comments. Please see
>>below
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
