Hi Yingzhen, Thanks for the review - it turned up a number of issues that are common with Bernard's review, so we decided to deal with his review first (see the recently posted -11) version and then look at this one. In general, please take a look at the -11 version, which should be clearer. David> Comments inline on specific items. Thanks, --David -----Original Message----- From: Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 1:45 AM To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: detnet@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-10 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu Review result: Has Issues Hi, Thanks for the draft. I am the assigned OPSDIR reviewer to conduct a last call review of this draft. General comments: The draft lists how existing OAM protocols/tools can be used in DetNet with IP data plane. However, I don't think it's clearly stated in either the abstract or the introduction section, so it's not clear to me what information the draft is trying to deliver. OAM principles as stated in the abstract? or how existing solutions may work in DetNet? David> The latter is intended - this should be clarified and consistent in the -11 version, please check. There are some editorial nits in the draft, and some of them made the draft hard to read. I'd suggest an editorial pass and then I can do another round of review. Detail comments with line number from idnits: 80 usually performed on-demand. These tasks achieved by a combination s/usually performed/are usually performed s/achieved/are achieved David> Fixed in the -11 version. In Section 2.1, there should be a ":" after each term/abbreviation. David> Agree, should be done for consistency. 145 packets. For example, that can be achieved with a 3-tuple 146 (destination and source IP addresses in combination with DSCP value) 147 used to identify the IP DetNet flow. In such a scenario, an IP OAM 148 session between the same pair of IP nodes would share the network 149 treatment with the monitored IP DetNet flow regardless of whether 150 ICMP, BFD, or STAMP protocol is used. Q: Do you mean as long as two protocols, for example ICMP and BFD, have the same DSCP value, the network treatment will be the same? David> No, please see the new text in -11, which should be clearer. In 20/20 hindsight, we omitted the assumption for the example that DetNet is using 3-tuples (e.g., and not 5-tuples) to determine which traffic receives DetNet handling/QoS. The overall concern is that the OAM traffic use the same network path and receive the same DetNet forwarding treatment as the DetNet traffic that is being monitored. 158 protocol like, for example, UDP, a DetNet node must able to associate s/must able to/must be able to David> Ok, will fix. 168 protocol is one of the assigned by IANA, then the UDP source port can s/the assigned/those assigned David> Removed as part of rewriting that paragraph in -11. 167 DetNet flow. When the UDP destination port number used by the OAM 168 protocol is one of the assigned by IANA, then the UDP source port can 169 be used to achieve co-routedness of OAM, and the monitored IP DetNet 170 flow in the multipath environments, e.g., Link Aggregation Group or 171 Equal Cost Multipath. Q: It's not clear how using the same UDP source port the OAM packets will be guaranteed to follow the same path as the monitored IP flow. Please clarify. David> Clarification/explanation improved in -11, please take a look at the new text. 266 and MPLS data planes analyzed in Section 6.2 of 268 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam]. Also, requirements and recommendations nits: broken line. David> I suspect that's a tooling artifact, RFC Editor will deal with this. 268 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam]. Also, requirements and recommendations 269 for OAM interworking between a DetNet domain with MPLS data plane and 270 OAM of a TSN equally apply to a DetNet domain with an IP data plane. I'd suggest rewriting this sentence. I can't understand what it's trying to say. David> Yes, it's a bit terse and unclear for that reason. We'll propose new text in a subsequent message. Thanks, Yingzhen -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
