Hi, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls Authors, Please find one comment inline. > On Mar 13, 2020, at 7:19 AM, Shwetha Bhandari via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Shwetha Bhandari > Review result: Ready > > 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 per guidelines in RFC5706 . > 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. > > Summary: > This document specified Deterministic Networking data plane over MPLS Packet > Switched Networks. > > Focussing the review checklist from RFC5706: > - This document does not specify the controller and OAM function - It defers > DetNet MPLS to use an associated controller and Operations, Administration, and > Maintenance (OAM) functions that are defined outside of this document. > - It discusses the deployment scenario. > - There is a Management and Control Information Summary section describes the > information needed by service and forwarding layers of the data plane from > DetNet controller plane. This includes reference to existing MPLS label > advertisement mechanisms needed for operationalizing DetNet MPLS data plane. - > For connectivity verification and monitoring: this document follows procedures > set out in rfc5085 for Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity > Verification(VCCV) and supports In-Band VCCV (type 1) only. I assume this would > defer a detailed discussion to a different draft produced by detnet wg > (draft-mirsky-detnet-mpls-oam-01?) However this is not called out in this > document. I agree with this perspective, in which a VCCV type can be specified based on the dataplane itself. In this context, I think saying "VCCV Tyoe 1 only” as the document specifies is the best approach. I would add not only RFC5085 but also RFC 5885 as references for this, since they started as a common document. However, I do not believe ietf-detnet-mpls should specify what goes over that OAM channel, and not add forward references to individual drafts. A statement like “OAM for further study” should suffice. And the document already has: Additional considerations on DetNet-specific OAM are subjects for further study. So that sounds as detailed as known for now. Thanks, Carlos. > - There is also a dedicated document to specify data model for > provisioning of end-to-end DetNet service - draft-ietf-detnet-yang-05, hence > not covered in this document. > > Hence with regards to operational considerations listed in RFC 5706 I dont see > any issues in this document. > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-DIR mailing list > OPS-DIR@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
