Active OAM for use in Geneve
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-16

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam and RFC 9772, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my previous blocking DISCUSS at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/iB6bhzYMgegIqIgphhhY5NBmQGM/

Nevertheless, I have some new COMMENTS to be addressed before the publication.

## NEW COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 2.3

s/from the Dummy IPv6 Range for IPv6 [I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd]/from the Dummy IPv6 Range for IPv6 *dummy_prefix*/ + add a paragraph with a note to the RFC editor to reply *dummy_prefix* but the IANA allocation for IPv6 Dummy Prefix + remove draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd from the reference list.

Note: I think that the above is cleaner and also 'breaks' the cluster assuming that IANA acts faster than RFC Editor.

### Use of a source-only address

Some text about using a source-only address as destination on purpose to generate an exception may be useful, perhaps in the introduction.

## PREVIOUS COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 2.1

Isn't requirement #1 implied by requirement #2 ? I.e., all packets complying to requirement #2 also complies to requirement #1 ?

### Section 2.2

Is `Management VNI` the right term for active probing OAM traffic ? I.e., I would not use 'management' for ping and would reserve it for netconf or other configuration/telemetry traffic.

`A packet received over the control channel MUST be forwarded` forwarded by whom and to whom ?

### Section 2.3

Is there any recommendation for inner source IP address/UDP port ?


## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-)

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-14
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below two blocking DISCUSS points (one is easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

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

Other thanks to Tim Chown, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review (esp Tim's comment about section 2.1 and entropy):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-14-intdir-lc-chown-2025-01-06/ (his review is recent, hence I understand the lack of replies by the authors)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Section 2.3

In order to use RFC 5082, the receiver MUST also drop packets whose Hop Limit/TTL is not 255, please be specific in this section in addition to section 4.

Destination address being IPv6/IPv4 loopback address... I may well be missing one obvious part but as a Geneve tunnel behaves like a layer-2 link, no IPv6 packet can be sent to another host with the loopback address per section 2.5.3 of RFC 4291: `An IPv6 packet with a destination address of loopback must never be sent outside of a single node` (and I am pretty sure there is a similar constraint for IPv4). Suggest using a destination address of ff02::2/128 (all link routers) or even requesting a specific link-local multicast address for Geneve OAM.

[Ballot comment]
## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 2.1

Isn't requirement #1 implied by requirement #2 ? I.e., all packets complying to requirement #2 also complies to requirement #1 ?

### Section 2.2

Is `Management VNI` the right term for active probing OAM traffic ? I.e., I would not use 'management' for ping and would reserve it for netconf or other configuration/telemetry traffic.

`A packet received over the control channel MUST be forwarded` forwarded by whom and to whom ?

### Section 2.3

Is there any recommendation for inner source IP address/UDP port ?


## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-)

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document, and also thanks to Tony Li for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-13-opsdir-telechat-li-2025-01-02/) and your followup.

As a nit, the document title is "Active OAM for use in GENEVE", but the document (and RFC 8926) uses Pascal case (Geneve).

[Ballot comment]
Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "his"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their"

[Ballot comment]

The smallest nit:
Section 2.2, second to last para., last sentence:  Through this draft ICMP is called an 'echo', except in this sentence where it is called a 'ping'.  Most people realize that these are the same thing, but why not just use the same word to mean the same thing?  I'd suggest changing 'ping' to 'echo' in this sentence.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-13, 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 2024-12-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Active OAM for use in GENEVE) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Virtualization Overlays WG
(nvo3) to consider the following document: - 'Active OAM for use in GENEVE'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2024-12-16. 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


  Geneve (Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation) is a flexible
  and extensible network virtualization overlay protocol designed to
  encapsulate network packets for transport across underlying physical
  networks.  This document specifies the requirements and provides a
  framework for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in
  Geneve networks.  It outlines the OAM functions necessary to monitor,
  diagnose, and troubleshoot Geneve overlay networks to ensure proper
  operation and performance.  The document aims to guide the
  implementation of OAM mechanisms within the Geneve protocol to
  support network operators in maintaining reliable and efficient
  virtualized network environments.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents



## 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 document has broad consensus in the working group. It has been developed over a number of years and addresses part of an OAM milestone.

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

This document was not controversial.

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.)

None indicated.


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)?

None indicated. There are numerous known implementations of OAM over tunnels e.g. MPLS LSPs, and
there are known implementations of Geneve (RFC8926). Although there is no formal record
of implementations of active OAM over Geneve, this draft does not make any changes to
OAM state machines or protocols themselves, and simply describes how they should be encapsulated.


## 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 draft was subject to a RTG DIR early review, which concluded that it was
ready. It was also reviewed by the GenART team and was considered ready.

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.


There are no requirements for formal expert review.

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]?


No YANG module specififed.

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.

The document contains no formal languages.


## 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. I have reviewed the document and provided a number of comments to improve the
readability of the document, all of which were addressed. I believe it
is ready to be handed off to the IESG.


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 issues 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?


Standards Track. This is appropriate as the draft specifies an encapsulation method for OAM
for NVO3 networks using Geneve (RFC8926).


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. Requests for IPR declarations, or knowledge of applicable IPR, were made at WG adoption and last call time.
There are no IPR disclosures and all authors and contributors have indicated that they are not aware of any applicable IPR.


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. There are four authors listed.

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.)

ID-Nits passes. There is one warning about an IPv4 address format. This seems to be triggered by
a reference to an IPv4 loopback address in the document (127.0.0.1/32), but that looks OK.


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

The references appear to be classified correctly.

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 normative references are to RFCs.

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 normative down-refs.

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?

All normative references are to published RFCs.

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]).

There are no IANA requests.

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.

There are no IANA requests.

[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



## 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 document has broad consensus in the working group. It has been developed over a number of years and addresses part of an OAM milestone.

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

This document was not controversial.

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.)

None indicated.


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)?

None indicated. There are numerous known implementations of OAM over tunnels e.g. MPLS LSPs, and
there are known implementations of Geneve (RFC8926). Although there is no formal record
of implementations of active OAM over Geneve, this draft does not make any changes to
OAM state machines or protocols themselves, and simply describes how they should be encapsulated.


## 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 draft was subject to a RTG DIR early review, which concluded that it was
ready. It was also reviewed by the GenART team and was considered ready.

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.


There are no requirements for formal expert review.

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]?


No YANG module specififed.

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.

The document contains no formal languages.


## 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. I have reviewed the document and provided a number of comments to improve the
readability of the document, all of which were addressed. I believe it
is ready to be handed off to the IESG.


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 issues 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?


Standards Track. This is appropriate as the draft specifies an encapsulation method for OAM
for NVO3 networks using Geneve (RFC8926).


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. Requests for IPR declarations, or knowledge of applicable IPR, were made at WG adoption and last call time.
There are no IPR disclosures and all authors and contributors have indicated that they are not aware of any applicable IPR.


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. There are four authors listed.

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.)

ID-Nits passes. There is one warning about an IPv4 address format. This seems to be triggered by
a reference to an IPv4 loopback address in the document (127.0.0.1/32), but that looks OK.


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

The references appear to be classified correctly.

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 normative references are to RFCs.

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 normative down-refs.

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?

All normative references are to published RFCs.

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]).

There are no IANA requests.

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.

There are no IANA requests.

[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/