Reviewer: Tim Chown Review result: Ready with Nits Hi, This draft presents requirements and a framework for OAM within Geneve networks, to guide the implementation of active OAM mechanisms that can be run between Geneve NVEs. Overall the draft is close to being Ready for advancement to the IESG, save some minor comments/nits below which I would encourage the authors to address to enhance the clarity of the document where currently I find some parts ambiguous or even at odds with each other. General: The draft doesn't clearly state in the abstract that the scope of the document is OAM *within* the Geneve network, i.e., between the tenant-facing interfaces of the NVEs, and that testing end-to-end between tenants is out of scope. Once I realised this my second pass through the document was much easier. I'd suggest putting the text in para 5 of section 1 about "Active OAM messages in a..." much earlier on. Secondly, the draft is about OAM, but you might want to troubleshoot by running other supported tools in the platform over the Geneve elements, e.g., iperf. Does this draft apply to such tools as well as the active OAM examples you give, as a side benefit, or would that need separate treatment? Section 2.1: It's not made clear HOW test packets are made to share the same fate as data packets. Given this document is implementation guidance, maybe make it more explicit? In particular, is there the possibility of different traffic over the same tunnel following different paths through the underlay? If so, how is this catered for? Requirement 4 - must not be forwarded to a tenant, but presumably never sent from a tenant - the source is always an NVE? Is it always the outer interface or may it be any NVE interface? I don't understand the "express entropy" part of Requirement 5 - how does the "programming" ensure the in-band property? What is the entropy here? Isn't entropy normally something you need a lot of to allow a good hash/load balance distribution? Section 2.2 Nice examples, but in the first case Req 4 is about tenants, not the overlay? I think you should state very clearly what the test endpoints are for diagnosing the first case. I assumed the tests would be within the Geneve network, but you then imply it is not? Then for the second case you say details are out of scope of the document. This seems the more interesting, "real" case, but it's not considered in detail - is there a reason? Typos: Section 1, para 3 "example of active" - make plural Section 2.2 penultimate para "specification, MUST" - delete the comma Tim -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
