Hi Loa,
We have addressed most of your comments in the enclosed .txt file.
We have also uploaded updated XML file to the 6man/OAM repository (but
please use the enclosed .txt file for diffs. Somehow “Compare Editor's
Copy to Working Group Draft” is pointing to older diffs.
Details of how your comments are addressed are listed in the following
as well as in the enclosed updated diffs file that you shared earlier.
We plan to address the remaining comments very soon.
Many thanks again for detailed review.
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
*How comments were addressed*:
[LA1]The Abstract seems to be a bit ìbareî, it should be a stand-alone
text, this seem to pre-suppose an high level of familiarity with the topic.
[ZA] rewrite TBD.
[LA2]Dataplane or data pale, us one both not both.
[ZA] Changed.
[LA3]îsomeî, this begs for an explanation of what has been left out and why.
[LA4]There is an RFC 7322, please make sure that you are following these
guidelines.
S for the placement of the ìRequirement Languageî, the style guide says
that it should be placed as a top level section after the Introduction,
however not even the RFC Editor follow that guidance, the Requirement
Language are most often placed as a subsection of the introduction.
[ZA] Changed the text to follow the RFC7322 guideline.
[LA5]There is a new template for this, BCP BCP 14 which consists of twp
RFCs ([RFC2119] [RFC8174]) should be referenced.
[ZA] Reference to [RFC8174] added.
[LA6]Thos is very sparse, and it is also a direct copy og the abstract
(or the other way around). I donít think this is allowed.
[ZA] rewrite TBD.
[LA7]I think you could remove this header and make îAbbreviationsî
section 1.1
[ZA] Fixed.
[LA8]RFC 8402 define this is as îSegemetns Leftî
[ZA] Good catch! Fixed.
[LA9]Also this document uses îSegments Leftî
[ZA] Fixed.
[LA10]Admittedly the topology is simple, but the figure could be much
clearer.
I agree that it is a good idea to define a simple topology and use it
throughout the document.
[ZA] Thanks. Any suggestion to simplify is welcomed.
[LA11]This could be a good place to explain the use of înode kî.
[ZA] Moved.
[LA12]Probably not a very strong point, ìclassicî is already a bit
ambivalent, and will be more so as the time goes by. Iíd say just drop
it, or make it ìnon-SRv6 IPv6 nodesî.
[ZA] Fixed.
[LA13]îNode kî is not in the reference topology.
[ZA] Node k is used to refer to all nodes collectively (e.g., to define
the IPv6 addressing scheme for them.). IMO this should be fine.
[LA14]If you are going to push the link number into the IPv6 address, it
would be better to start numbering from zero.
[ZA] There is no node 0 in the topology. The addressing example is based
on node names. IMO this should be fine.
[LA15]This three is redundant, the î3:4î in the two previous positions
uniquely identify the link,
[ZA] Actually it is not redundant as the last :3 represents the link
address at node 3 side. IMO this should be fine.
[LA16]After going through this a number of time Iím convinced that this
is correct. However, it takes quite an effort to go through a rather
cryptic text. Is it possible to clarify.
[ZA] Thanks for your feedback. Actually there was a typo and I fixed it.
[LA17]This îS1î means îSID1î, why do we need the ìSî as a special
notation when we already have ìSIDî
[ZA] Si is a notation that relates to a topology or service segment.
S[j] represents the SID pointed by the SL field in the SRH. S[j] is like
a index in sid-list in the SRH. IMO this should be fine.
[LA18]When we were specifying MPLS-TP we diid a lot of OAM work,
concepts like MIPs and MEPs were introduced. Do these concepts have any
bearing on SRv6 OAM?
[ZA] Thanks for your feedback. SRv6 OAM is in-line with OAM in IPv6
networks, which are not of transport nature.
[LA19]This is a double reference to the same document and strictly note
necessary The format of the second reference is also wrong and does not
appear in the reference list.
[ZA] Fixed.
[LA20]Well, if you do you need a subsection in the IANA Consideration.
The flag field is defined in ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, but it is
still a draft.
As this document stands now you canít find the IANA allocations. Partly
depending on that IANA not yet done the allocations, but also because if
they were done there is no clear reference to the registry. SRH.Flags is
not the name of the registry.
[ZA] Fixed.
[LA21]The notation îSRH.Flagsî is invented here, right?
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, and the SRV6 Networking
programming draft (which is referenced for terminology) simply talks
about SRH or ìSRH Flagsî.
[ZA] The SRH.Flags is defined in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header.
The IANA registry for SRH.Flags is requested in
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header. This document just defined a
flag to identify OAM packets.
[LA22]Why start with bit 2, why not 0 or 7?
[ZA] There is a long history. This O-flag flag were originally defined
in the
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-11.
During the LC review, it was moved to OAM draft. But the position has
been already defined and used by the ASICs. Hence, keeping the same bit
position.
[LA23]We are allocating a flag from a registry defined in
draft-ietf-6man-segment- routing-header. Since this is still in IESG
review it will not be possible progress this document until the routing
header document is in the RFC Editors queue, and it canít become an RFC
until the document defining the registry is also an RFC.
I think the SRH flags registry should be properly named here, "Segment
Routing Header Flags"
[ZA] Yes, the SRH flags registry is named as "Segment Routing Header
Flags". Please see IANA section in the new revision.
[LA24]I think the should be either OAM, Operation Administration and
Maintenance; or O&M, OAM and Management.
See RFC 6291.
[ZA] Fixed.
[LA25]Note: Chapter 3 is well written and easy to understand
[ZA] Will fix it - TBD.
[LA26]Comment added after reading the entire section, the procedures and
mechanisms described is as far as I can judge well and clearly documented.
[ZA] Thanks.
[LA27]An Extreme nit, but I would call this îPing in SRv6 Networksî
[ZA] Fixed
[LA28]I said it before ñ I donít like ìClassicî, and I donít thnk it is
necessary or contribute significantly.
[ZA] We will think about renaming. TBD.
[LA29]I think this procedures is well and clearly documented.
[ZA] Thanks.
[LA30]As far as I can see this works.
[ZA] Thanks.
[LA31]We might want a reference.
[ZA] This should be fine as this is well know.
[LA32]At this point I start think of SRv6 as îconnection oriented.
[ZA] SRv6 enables source routing.
[LA33]I see no immediate technical problems here.
[ZA] Thanks
[LA34]I defer to the security experts on this section.
[ZA] Yes that is part of the review process.
[LA35]You need text in this section describing the allocation of the O-flag.
[ZA] Fixed.
[LA36]What are the registration procedures???
If I understand correctly we want to take one of the unused ICMPv6 Type
Numbers and create the ìICMP Type Numbers ñ SRv6 OAM messagesî registry.
But with all due respect the text is a bit tangled.
[ZA] Fixed the text. Thanks for the good catch.
[LA37]This allocation is in itself not problematic, but the registries
are not yet in place., weíll have to wait for the network programming
draft to progress.
[ZA] Agreed!
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
*From: *"Zafar Ali (zali)" <z...@cisco.com>
*Date: *Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 12:30 PM
*To: *Loa Andersson <l...@pi.nu>, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org>, 6man WG
<i...@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
*Cc: *6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)"
<z...@cisco.com>
*Subject: *Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for
<draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
Hi Loa,
Sorry, I could not get back to your other comments, earlier.
I am starting to look into all outstanding comments.
It will be great if you could send me copy of the word document diffs
(privately).
But either way, your comments are quite clear.
Many Thanks
Regards … Zafar
*From: *"Zafar Ali (zali)" <z...@cisco.com>
*Date: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 6:46 PM
*To: *Loa Andersson <l...@pi.nu>, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org>, 6man WG
<i...@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
*Cc: *6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)"
<z...@cisco.com>
*Subject: *Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for
<draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
Loa,
Many thanks.
The comments in your email has been addressed in latest version in the
GitHub.
We are working to address the rest of your comments.
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
*From: *Loa Andersson <l...@pi.nu>
*Date: *Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 5:03 AM
*To: *"Zafar Ali (zali)" <z...@cisco.com>, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org>, 6man WG
<i...@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
*Cc: *6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>
*Subject: *Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for
<draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
Zafar,
Tnx - 1 down 36 to go!
Actually a bit more with the NITs output. Can you take a look at the
long lines next, it should be easy edits.
The first two long lines are in this paragraph:
248 S01.1. IF SRH.Flags.O-flag is set and local configuration permits
249 O-flag processing THEN
250 a. Make a copy of the packet.
251 b. Send the copied packet, along with a timestamp
252 to the OAM process. ;; Ref1
253 Ref1: An implementation SHOULD copy and record the timestamp as
soon as
254 possible during packet processing. Timestamp is not carried in
the packet
255 forwarded to the next hop.
Line 253 has four characters "n as" outside the allowed 72 characters
Line 254 has the word "packet" outside the allowed 72 characters
This is inside the figure and I think that you can left shift the
enire figure, otherwise I don't see a problem with introducing line
breaks.
In figure 4:
639 > traceroute srv6 B:4:C52 via segment-list B:2:C31
641 Tracing the route to SID function B:4:C52
642 1 2001:DB8:1:2:21 0.512 msec 0.425 msec 0.374 msec
643 SRH: (B:4:C52, B:4:OTP, B:2:C31; SL=2)
644 2 2001:DB8:2:3:31 0.721 msec 0.810 msec 0.795 msec
645 SRH: (B:4:C52, B:4:OTP, B:2:C31; SL=1)
646 3 2001:DB8:3:4::41 0.921 msec 0.816 msec 0.759 msec
647 SRH: (B:4:C52, B:4:OTP, B:2:C31; SL=1)
649 Figure 4 A sample output for hop-by-hop traceroute to a SID
function
Line 649 has "tion" of "SID function" (fig numbring) outside the allowed
72 characters, again should be easy to left shif or introduce line
breaks.
The reason I want to address this first is that it is easy, but also
a show stopper.
And last, thugh I hate to add late comments - abbreviations, I have not
gone through the entire document to look for unexpanded abbreviations,
but there is at least one "NPU". Which I read as Network Processing Unit,
what confuses me is that it is not in the RFC Editors abbreviation list
at all. I think there is an action point for the wg chairs to have it
introduced, and for the authros to expand, as well as going through the
document an d make sure that everthing that should be expanded is.
/Loa
On 22/01/2020 13:15, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
Hi Loa,
Many thanks for your follow-up.
Based on your feedback, we have updated the version in the GitHub.
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
*From: *Loa Andersson <l...@pi.nu <mailto:l...@pi.nu>>
*Date: *Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 9:59 PM
*To: *"Zafar Ali (zali)" <z...@cisco.com <mailto:z...@cisco.com>>,
Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>>,
Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org <mailto:otr...@employees.org>>, 6man WG
<i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org
<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
*Cc: *6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:6man-cha...@ietf.org>>
*Subject: *Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for
<draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
Zafar,
Thanks for addressing this. However one thing remains. The text is now:
"There MAY be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID."
I don't think there is a need for requirement language in that sentence,
I read it as straightforward English:
"There may be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID."
Would do very well.
Can you explain the need for requirement language?
/Loa
On 22/01/2020 01:55, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
Hi Brian,
Many thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.
The working copy of the new version in the repository
addresses your/
Loa’s comment highlighted in your email.
https://github.com/ietf-6man/srv6-oam
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
*From: *spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org
<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>
<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>
<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org%3e>> on behalf of Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
<mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
<mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
<mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com%3e>>
*Organization: *University of Auckland
*Date: *Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:57 PM
*To: *Loa Andersson <l...@pi.nu <mailto:l...@pi.nu>
<mailto:l...@pi.nu> <mailto:l...@pi.nu%3e>>, Ole Troan
<otr...@employees.org <mailto:otr...@employees.org>
<mailto:otr...@employees.org> <mailto:otr...@employees.org%3e>>, 6man
WG <i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>
<mailto:i...@ietf.org> <mailto:i...@ietf.org%3e>>, SPRING WG
<spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
<mailto:spring@ietf.org> <mailto:spring@ietf.org%3e>>
*Cc: *6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org
<mailto:6man-cha...@ietf.org> <mailto:6man-cha...@ietf.org>
<mailto:6man-cha...@ietf.org%3e>>
*Subject: *Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for
<draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
To be clear about one of the points in the review, MAY NOT is not
allowed by RFC2119 because it is totally ambiguous in English
(since it
can mean either "must not" or "might not"). In any case the
phrase "MAY
or MAY NOT" is not of any normative value. It presumably
simply means
"MAY" in all cases in this draft.
Regards
Brian
On 20-Jan-20 20:54, Loa Andersson wrote:
WG,
I have reviewed the entire document.
First, I'm not an IPv6 expert.
As far as I can see the sued on
I have not used github, I had a couple of attempts to learn
the tools,
but so far I have failed.
I have instead done what I use to do, use the review
tool with
Word.
Since I sometimes have a pushback on the docx-format I save
the result
as a .txt-file. Drawback is that all comment show up as
refrences to a
list at the end of the document. But you can't get
everything.
/Loa
PS gives this output for this draft; it is quite a lot
and in
itself are
so much that it is worth sending it bck to the authors and
asking them
to fix it. Was the noits tool checked at all before starting
the wglc?
idnits 2.16.02
/tmp/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF
Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to
https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to
https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the
document, the
longest one
being 6 characters in excess of 72.
== There are 5 instances of lines with
non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
addresses
in the document. If these are example
addresses, they
should be
changed.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors
Copyright Line
does not
match the current year
-- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase
expression 'MAY
NOT'
is not
defined in RFC 2119. If it is intended as a
requirements
expression, it
should be rewritten using one of the combinations
defined in
RFC 2119;
otherwise it should not be all-uppercase.
== The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC
2119
requirements
text,
is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be
used. Consider
using 'MUST
NOT' instead (if that is what you mean).
Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:
To perform ICMPv6 ping to a target SID an echo
request
message is
generated by the initiator with the END.OP or
END.OTP
SID in the
segment-list of the SRH immediately preceding the
target SID.
There MAY
or MAY NOT be additional segments preceding the
END.OP/
END.OTP SID.
== The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC
2119
requirements
text,
is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be
used. Consider
using 'MUST
NOT' instead (if that is what you mean).
Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:
To traceroute a target SID a probe message is
generated by the
initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the
segment-list of
the SRH
immediately preceding the target SID. There MAY or
MAY NOT be
additional
segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID.
-- The document date (December 18, 2019) is 32 days
in the
past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed
Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using
normative
references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Missing Reference: 'SL' is mentioned on line
190, but not
defined
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on
line 191
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on
line 191
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on
line 192
== Missing Reference: 'RFC7011' is mentioned on
line 230, but
not defined
== Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext' is
mentioned on line
241, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'RFC792' is mentioned on line
701, but
not defined
== Missing Reference: 'RFC 8403' is mentioned on line
660, but not
defined
== Unused Reference: 'RFC0792' is defined on line
823, but no
explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC8403' is defined on line
843, but no
explicit
reference was found in the text
== Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings
(==), 5
comments
(--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more
detailed
information
about
the items above.
On 05/12/2019 04:53, 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
i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org> <mailto:i...@ietf.org>
<mailto:i...@ietf.org>
Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org> <mailto:i...@ietf.org>
<mailto:i...@ietf.org>
Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--
Loa Andersson email: l...@pi.nu
<mailto:l...@pi.nu> <mailto:l...@pi.nu>
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--
Loa Andersson email: l...@pi.nu <mailto:l...@pi.nu>
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
