Hi Carlos, Thanks for the feedbacks. Replies: 1. OAM -- there's a single short mention of OAM as a footnote of Section 5. Agreed. We have added a reference to the MPLS-based DetNet OAM techniques, described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam/ 2. "4.4. Flow Aggregation", "In the first case, the different DetNet PWs [...]" Yes, it is the case using Figure 3 encapsulation. We have added a reference. 3. DetNet document roadmap. Basically, RFC 8964, RFC 9025, this document. How they really relate? Agree, clarification needed here. We have added clarification on this by updating Section "1. Introduction" OLD TEXT This documents provides sequencing information to DetNet IP nodes by re-using the DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP data plane [RFC9025] with the restriction of using zero F-labels. NEW TEXT This document provides sequencing information to DetNet IP data plane, so it results in an improved version of the DetNet IP data plane. The improvement is achieved by re-using the DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP data plane [RFC9025] with the restriction of using zero F-labels. END 4. The use in S5 of the IPv6 Flow Label could also use some processing specificity. OK. Agree, we have added clarification based on Olivier Bonaventure's recent comment to section 4.4. 5. From an Ops perspective, are there additional MPLS-based DetNet counters that would help in data-plane troubleshooting and debugging? No, there are no additional MPLS-based counters used here. 6. Finally, please find a couple of nits for consideration: Thanks, we have fixed them. All changes will be applied in the next version (uploaded soon). Let us know if any further changes needed. Thanks & Cheers Bala'zs -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2023 7:21 PM To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: detnet@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08 Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro Review result: Has Issues Hi! Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof Type Last Call Review Team Ops Directorate (opsdir) Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document is comprehensive and achieves exactly what it is set to in the short and intentional Abstract. >From an OpsDir perspective, I found a areas potentially lacking in coverage: 1. OAM -- there's a single short mention of OAM as a footnote of Section 5. However, that lacks specificity and appropriate references. I would suggest turning that note into a small sub-section that, at least, provides Normative citation to the referenced "MPLS-based DetNet OAM techniques". 2. "4.4. Flow Aggregation", "In the first case, the different DetNet PWs [...]" Is this case using Figure 3 encapsulation? if so, could this be mentioned or referenced? 3. DetNet document roadmap. Is this document an update to RFC9025? Is the sequencing the Normative piece? How these two relate and what's missing from RFC9025 could be more clearly articulated. Basically, RFC 8964, RFC 9025, this document. How they really relate? 4. The use in S5 of the IPv6 Flow Label could also use some processing specificity. 5. From an Ops perspective, are there additional MPLS-based DetNet counters that would help in data-plane troubleshooting and debugging? 6. Finally, please find a couple of nits for consideration: The DetNet MPLS data plane [RFC8964] specifies how sequencing information is encoded in the MPLS header. However, the DetNet IP data plane described in [RFC8939] does not specify how sequencing information can be encoded in the IP header. This documents provides sequencing information to DetNet IP nodes by re-using the DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP data plane [RFC9025] with the restriction of using zero F-labels. "This documents" -> "This document" For the second option, an additional hierarchy is created thanks to an additional Service-ID and d-CW tuple added to the encapsulation. The Aggregate-ID is a special case of a Service-ID, whose properties are known only at the aggregation and de-aggregation end points. It is a property of the Aggregate-ID that it is followed by a d-CW followed by an Service-ID/d-CW tuple. Figure 4 shows the "an Service-ID" -> "a Service-ID" Thanks, and very best, Carlos Pignataro. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
