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?
- Section 4.1
- Others
- Section 6
- The Independent management network is mentioned only in passing. Shouldn’t there be a much stronger recommendation for this instead?
- Section 6
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
- Add reference for
- Section 3.3
- Add reference for
- Syslog - RFC 5424
- sFlow - RFC 3176
- Expand PSAMP - Packet Sampling
- Add reference for
- 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
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
