Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networks (DetNet) with IP Data Plane
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-13

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.  Just a few minor comments.

Minor level comments:

(1) p 5, sec 3.4.  Active OAM Using GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation

  [RFC8086] has defined the method of encapsulating GRE (Generic
  Routing Encapsulation) headers in UDP.  GRE-in-UDP encapsulation can
  be used for IP DetNet OAM as it eases the task of mapping an OAM test
  session to a particular IP DetNet flow that is identified by N-tuple.
  Matching a GRE-in-UDP tunnel to the monitored IP DetNet flow enables
  the use of Y.1731/G.8013 [ITU-T.1731] as a comprehensive toolset of
  OAM.  The Protocol Type field in GRE header must be set to 0x8902
  assigned by IANA to IEEE 802.1ag Connectivity Fault Management (CFM)
  Protocol / ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731.  Y.1731/G.8013 supports
  necessary for IP DetNet OAM functions, i.e., continuity check, one-
  way packet loss and packet delay measurement.

A few minor comments on this paragraph:

1. The section title is about "Active OAM Using GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation" but the text seems to be more specifically referring to Y.1731.  Should the title of the section be refined?

2. Perhaps "set to 0x8902 assigned" => "set to 0x8902, assigned"

3. The last sentence of the paragraph doesn't scan properly.


(2) p 6, sec 7.  Acknowledgment

  TBA

Just a note that this is still blank, and you may want to remove this section if you don't wish to acknowledge anyone.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Bernard Adoba for the TSVART review.

This document seems to be a very long version of the sentence "make sure your OAM flows hash the same as your data flows", but I see no transport issues.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. I have some mostly minor comments below, that I hope may be helpful. Also, thanks to Roman for being special guest AD, and to János for the clear and helpful shepherd write-up.

### Section 2.1, unused

Defined, never used:

- DiffServ (but I notice 'DSCP' is used without expansion in Section 3)
- PREF (except it's used by a later definition)
- POF
- RDI

I think all these could be removed (folding PREF into the 'Detnet Node' definition where it's used).

Defined, only used once:

- ACH is used in Figure 1, and you provide a definition in-line, which is sufficient, so I think this could be removed from §2.1.
- Underlay network, in this case, the definition seems useful since it keeps the paragraph in §3 more concise.

### Section 3, this sentence no verb

It took me longer than I would care to admit to work out that what's missing in this sentence is the verb "to be":

"The DetNet data plane encapsulation in a transport network with IP encapsulations specified in Section 6 of [RFC8939]."

I.e. it needs an "is" before "specified".

### Section 3, "e.g." or "i.e."

In the below-quoted sentence, do you really mean "e.g."? That is, are you stating an example? It doesn't look that way to me, it looks as though you mean "in other words", not "for example" which is what "e.g." means. If you mean "in other words", what you want is "i.e.", or just write out "in other words" for the avoidance of all uncertainty.

"In order to use ICMP for these purposes with DetNet, DetNet nodes must be able to associate ICMP traffic between DetNet nodes with IP DetNet traffic, e.g., ensure that such ICMP traffic uses the DetNet IP data plane in each node, otherwise ICMP may be unable to detect and localize failures that are specific to the DetNet IP data plane."

### Section 3.1, co-routing via UDP source port

I'm mulling over "may be able to achieve co-routedness of OAM with the monitored IP DetNet flow in multipath environments, e.g., Link Aggregation Group or Equal Cost Multipath, via use of a UDP source port value that results in the OAM traffic and the monitored IP DetNet flow hashing to the same path based on the packet header hashes used for path selection".

I guess this is true, but the word "may" is doing a lot of work here. The counter-case is when the hash function isn't uniform among all forwarders in the network. In such cases, it might not be possible to use this technique to co-route the OAM with a monitored flow.

I guess this might just be a case of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ though -- your document is saying "you have to have co-routing to get good OAM"... if the network isn't able to provide co-routed paths, then oh well, we can't have good OAM, perhaps it means we need to rearchitect the network?

If you agree, is it worth saying a few words to that effect (maybe without the shrug emoji) in this section?

### Section 4, wrong xref

"Interworking between DetNet domains with IP and MPLS data planes analyzed in Section 6.2 of [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam]."

There is no Section 6.2 of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-15. Section 6 is Security Considerations. Probably you mean Section 4.2?

### Section 7

You have "TBA" as the whole body of this section. I guess it's time to either put something there or delete the section. :-)

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-12

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit.

Special thanks to János Farkas for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Roman Danyliw as the acting AD ;-)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 1

Is the 1st paragraph defining what is OAM a little too light ? Operations cover more than performance monitoring. But, this is not critical for this I-D.

## Section 2.1

Should there be a reference for diff serv and ICMPv[46]?

Isn't it a little weird to use in an IP-only document the sentence `MPLS networks providing LSP connectivity between DetNet nodes are an example of the underlay layer` ?

## Section 3

I will let my fellow OPS ADs to chime in, but `OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the particular networking layer` is of course applicable for the in-path monitoring part of OAM, but probably not for the control part of OAM, e.g., netconf can be in a separate plane.

What about the use of IPv6 flow label ? Would it help for the IPv6 flows ?

## Section 3.1

While I am far from being a "flow hash" expert, is it really possible for compute UDP ports having the same hash value ? Especially when most vendors do not make their flow hash algorithms public ?

To be honest, the intent of sections 3.1 to 3.4 are unclear to me, hence my above question.

## Section 7

I was really about to raise a DISCUSS for this, but it is too trivial to fix: please either remove this section or add some contents.

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Oxford comma ?

Should there be an Oxford comma in `Administration and Maintenance`? Notably in the title and other places.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-12
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S3.3, S3.4

* Do the same comments apply to DetNet-style MPLS encap'd over IP or GRE
  directly, i.e. without UDP as described in RFC 4023?

  Maybe nobody runs that, so I'm genuinely curious.

Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Gyan Mishra. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Bernard Aboba. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-10, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam@ietf.org, janos.farkas@ericsson.com, lberger@labn.net, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networks (DetNet) with IP Data Plane) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Deterministic Networking WG (detnet)
to consider the following document: - 'Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
  Networks (DetNet) with IP Data Plane'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-02. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines the principles for using Operations,
  Administration, and Maintenance protocols and mechanisms in the
  Deterministic Networking networks with the IP data plane.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The normal WG process has been followed and the documents reflect WG consensus
with nothing special worth mentioning.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing notable.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

While there is interest in this specification from multiple vendors, there are no
publicly known implementations yet. The document is one of the key deliverables
of the WG.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The document does not have any effect on technologies anchored in other IETF WGs
or external organizations. Thus, no additional reviews were requested.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A, there is no such definition in the document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A, the document does not contain YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A, no formal language in the document.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No such issues have been identified.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status is Informational, which is reflected in datatracker. This is
the appropriate status because the document describes the use of existing IP OAM
protocols in a DetNet network.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/xoRsbDpTNR7FWEubLWCFJzF4Pe0/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No remaining I-D nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

I-D.ietf-detnet-yang and I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam have been submitted to the
IESG for publication.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This document does not have any requests for IANA allocation.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document does not have any requests for IANA allocation.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The normal WG process has been followed and the documents reflect WG consensus
with nothing special worth mentioning.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing notable.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

While there is interest in this specification from multiple vendors, there are no
publicly known implementations yet. The document is one of the key deliverables
of the WG.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The document does not have any effect on technologies anchored in other IETF WGs
or external organizations. Thus, no additional reviews were requested.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A, there is no such definition in the document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A, the document does not contain YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A, no formal language in the document.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No such issues have been identified.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status is Informational, which is reflected in datatracker. This is
the appropriate status because the document describes the use of existing IP OAM
protocols in a DetNet network.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/xoRsbDpTNR7FWEubLWCFJzF4Pe0/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No remaining I-D nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

I-D.ietf-detnet-yang and I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam have been submitted to the
IESG for publication.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This document does not have any requests for IANA allocation.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document does not have any requests for IANA allocation.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/