Loss and Delay Measurement in Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-08

[Ballot comment]
My ABSTAIN here is because Donald Eastlake is both chair of the WG and editor of many of its documents.  This undermines the consensus process in TRILL to the degree that I cannot support the publication of documents on which he is editor.

[Ballot comment]
I am balloting No objection on the basis of a very light review. I trust the responsible AD to have ensured adequate review.

Here are some nits:

---

You say:

  Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) [OAM]

But the cited document uses:

  Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)

See also your Abstract.

---

While you have correctly noted that Y.1731 is now G.8013/Y.1731, you
should update your reference to the most recent edition.

  [ITU-T.Y.8013-2013]
              ITU, "ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731: OAM functions and
              mechanisms for Ethernet based networks", ITU-T
              Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, 2013.

---

Section 1

  These protocols generally conform to
  the performance monitoring functionality defined in ITU-T
  G.8013/Y.1731 [Y.1731].

"generally conform" is an odd term. Things either conform or they don't.
So I interpret that some of the protocols conform and some don't, with
the balance being that most of the protocols conform. That means a few
don't and it would be good call out the specifics.

[Ballot comment]
6.1: The figure says "TLVOffset", but the description says, "FirstTLVOffset". Fix one or the other.

6.2.2, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4: Your definitions for "Reserved" are screwed up. Some are missing, some are duplicated.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

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

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Loss and Delay Measurement in Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection of
Lots of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document:
- 'Loss and Delay Measurement in Transparent Interconnection of Lots of
  Links (TRILL)'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-07-21. 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


  Performance Monitoring (PM) is a key aspect of Operations,
  Administration and Maintenance (OAM). It allows network operators to
  verify the Service Level Agreement (SLA) provided to customers, and
  to detect network anomalies. This document specifies mechanisms for
  Loss Measurement and Delay Measurement in TRILL networks.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay/ballot/


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

Date: 6/15/2014
Shepherd write-up (version 2/24/2012)
AD: Ted Lemon
WG Chairs: Donald Eastlake and Jon Hudson
Shepherd: Susan Hares

(1) type of RFC: Proposed standard.
Why appropriate: OAM relating to standard TRILL.
RFC updated: none since this is new OAM Features.
document format: states standard track.



(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

Performance Monitoring (PM) is a key aspect of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM). It allows network operators to
verify the Service Level Agreement (SLA) provided to customers, and
to detect network anomalies. This document specifies mechanisms for
Loss Measurement and Delay Measurement in TRILL networks.

Working Group Summary

Discussion on this topic has gone on for the last 2 years.
During the WG LC and discussion at the March IETF 89, the general
consensus was "document is ready for RFC".

Document Quality

The written text of this document is high.  The performance monitoring
issues clearly specified with clear descriptions of the mechanisms. 
This document is a pleasure to read!
 
The document has been co-authors by two groups implementing the
code for deployment (Cisco and Huawei).  The careful attention to
operational issues have shows in this draft.  No specific announcement
of the release date for  these TRILL PM implementations has been
made.  An implementation survey planned for June so a better
understanding of the deployments may align with the IESG review.
Other vendors have indicated consideration of the PM specification.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
  a) review of document for technical and editorial issues
  b) review of the WG lists messages, and IETF meetings
  c) nits run on the document.

RTRDIR (from Carlos Pignataro) provided review of the draft, and the authors updated the security section.  OPSDIR (Victor Kuarsingh) has it on its list, but suggested the PM review already done was the significant review.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No, the implement-review cycle is the best review possible.
The textual review has been done by WG chairs, shepherd, RTRDIR, and the PM group for OPSDIR. 

(5) Broader Review: An Early review of this document should be done by:
The general OPSDIR is still pending, but should complete soon.

(6) Specific concerns for this document: None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

(8) IPR Disclosures none:
Authors responding to IPR query: Tissa Senevirathne, Donald Eastlake,
Taz Mizrahi, and S. Salam, and D. Kumar. 

(9) WG issues/10 WG appeal looming on horizon:
Consensus: Strong
Discussions in IETF were detailed and WG seems to agree.
The strong implementation link seems to give WG assurance.

No Appeal is looming.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.  1 bogus, 1 date Q, 3 References
nits: warning for
Missing Reference: 'RF7180' is mentioned on line 423, but not defined - will get fixed in -06 version.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Reviews done by RTDIR and PM DIR have been completed. The general OPSDIR is still pending.


(13/14/15/16)  Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All reference normative or informative.
All normative except TRILL-FM have hit RFC. TRILL-FM will be
forwarded in package.

Downward normative reference to OAM-Framework is appropriate
in Shepherds opinion.

No RFC changes state due to this document.

(17) IANA considerations

The OpCodes utilize the same OpCodes as Y.1731 as follows:

      OpCode  OAM packet
      value    type
      ------  ----------

      45      1DM

      46      DMR

      47      DMM

      53      1SL

      54      SLR

      55      SLM

Since these opcodes are pre-assignment to Y.1731, there is no registry
utilized. 

(18) IANA new registries:
None used

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Date: 5/27/2014
Shepherd write-up (version 2/24/2012)
AD: Ted Lemon
WG Chairs: Donald Eastlake and Jon Hudson
Shepherd: Susan Hares

(1) type of RFC: Proposed standard.
Why appropriate: OAM relating to standard TRILL.
RFC updated: none since this is new OAM Features.
document format: states standard track.



(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

Performance Monitoring (PM) is a key aspect of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM). It allows network operators to
verify the Service Level Agreement (SLA) provided to customers, and
to detect network anomalies. This document specifies mechanisms for
Loss Measurement and Delay Measurement in TRILL networks.

Working Group Summary

Discussion on this topic has gone on for the last 2 years.
During the WG LC and discussion at the March IETF 89, the general
consensus was "document is ready for RFC".

Document Quality

The written text of this document is high.  The performance monitoring
issues clearly specified with clear descriptions of the mechanisms. 
This document is a pleasure to read!
 
The document has been co-authors by two groups implementing the
code for deployment (Cisco and Huawei).  The careful attention to
operational issues have shows in this draft.  No specific announcement
of the release date for  these TRILL PM implementations has been
made.  An implementation survey planned for June so a better
understanding of the deployments may align with the IESG review.
Other vendors have indicated consideration of the PM specification.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
  a) review of document for technical and editorial issues
  b) review of the WG lists messages, and IETF meetings
  c) nits run on the document.

Early review by OPSDIR, RTRDIR, and IANA will be request on 5/29/14 by the shepherd.
PM review already done on the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No, the implement-review cycle is the best review possible.
The textual review has been done by WG chairs and shepherd.

(5) Broader Review: An Early review of this document should be done by:
OPSDIR and RTRDIR. This review will be requested
by the shepherd on 5/28/14.

(6) Specific concerns for this document: None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

(8) IPR Disclosures none:
Authors responding to IPR query: Tissa Senevirathne, Donald Eastlake,
Taz Mizrahi, and S. Salam, and D. Kumar. 

(9) WG issues/10 WG appeal looming on horizon:
Consensus: Strong
Discussions in IETF were detailed and WG seems to agree.
The strong implementation link seems to give WG assurance.

No Appeal is looming.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.  1 bogus, 1 date Q, 3 References
nits: warning for
Missing Reference: 'RF7180' is mentioned on line 423, but not defined - will get fixed in -06 version.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

An Early review of this document should be done by:
OPSDIR and RTRDIR for performance monitoring.  PM DIR has already reviewed. 
This review will be requested\ by the shepherd on 5/28/14.

(13/14/15/16)  Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All reference normative or informative.
All normative except TRILL-FM have hit RFC. TRILL-FM will be
forwarded in package.

Downward normative reference to OAM-Framework is appropriate
in Shepherds opinion.

No RFC changes state due to this document.

(17) IANA considerations

The OpCodes utilize the same OpCodes as Y.1731 as follows:

      OpCode  OAM packet
      value    type
      ------  ----------

      45      1DM

      46      DMR

      47      DMM

      53      1SL

      54      SLR

      55      SLM

Since these opcodes are pre-assignment to Y.1731, there is no registry
utilized. 

(18) IANA new registries:
None used

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Date: 5/27/2014
Shepherd write-up (version 2/24/2012)
AD: Ted Lemon
WG Chairs: Donald Eastlake and Jon Hudson
Shepherd: Susan Hares

(1) type of RFC: Proposed standard.
Why appropriate: OAM relating to standard TRILL.
RFC updated: none since this is new OAM Features.
document format: states standard track.



(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

Performance Monitoring (PM) is a key aspect of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM). It allows network operators to
verify the Service Level Agreement (SLA) provided to customers, and
to detect network anomalies. This document specifies mechanisms for
Loss Measurement and Delay Measurement in TRILL networks.


Working Group Summary

Discussion on this topic has gone on for the last 2 years.
During the WG LC and discussion at the March IETF 89, the general
consensus was "document is ready for RFC".


Document Quality

The written text of this document is high.  The performance monitoring
issues clearly specified with clear descriptions of the mechanisms. 
This document is a pleasure to read!
 
The document has been co-authors by two groups implementing the
code for deployment (Cisco and Huawei).  The careful attention to
operational issues have shows in this draft.  No specific announcement
of the release date for  these TRILL PM implementations has been
made.  An implementation survey planned for June so a better
understanding of the deployments may align with the IESG review.
Other vendors have indicated consideration of the PM specification.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
  a) review of document for technical and editorial issues
  b) review of the WG lists messages, and IETF meetings
  c) nits run on the document.

nits: bogus warning with:
  == Line 1131 has weird spacing: '...  value    typ...'
RFC updates (see above)

Early review by OPSDIR, RTRDIR, and IANA will be request on 5/29/14 by the shepherd.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No, the implement-review cycle is the best review possible.
The textual review has been done by WG chairs and shepherd.

(5) Broader Review: An Early review of this document should be done by:
OPSDIR and RTRDIR. This review will be requested
by the shepherd on 5/28/14.

(6) Specific concerns for this document: None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

(8) IPR Disclosures none:
Authors responding to IPR query: Tissa Senevirathne, Donald Eastlake,
Taz Mizrahi, and S. Salam.  Unfortunately, D. Kumar did not respond.

(9) WG issues/10 WG appeal looming on horizon:
Consensus: Strong
Discussions in IETF were detailed and WG seems to agree.
The strong implementation link seems to give WG assurance.

No Appeal is looming.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.  1 bogus, 1 date Q, 3 References

bogus nit:
== Line 1125 has weird spacing: '...  value    typ...' -- seems invalid

other nits
a)  The document date (April 15, 2014) is 42 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?
b)  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework has been published as
    RFC 7174
c)  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework (ref. 'OAM-FRAMEWK')

d) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling has been published as
    RFC 7172

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

An Early review of this document should be done by:
OPSDIR and RTRDIR for performance monitoring.
This review will be requested\ by the shepherd on 5/28/14.

(13/14/15/16)  Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All reference normative or informative.
All normative except TRILL-FM have hit RFC. TRILL-FM will be
forwarded in package.

Downward normative reference to OAM-Framework is appropriate
in Shepherds opinion.

No RFC changes state due to this document.

(17) IANA considerations

The OpCodes utilize the same OpCodes as Y.1731 as follows:

      OpCode  OAM packet
      value    type
      ------  ----------

      45      1DM

      46      DMR

      47      DMM

      53      1SL

      54      SLR

      55      SLM

Since these opcodes are pre-assignment to Y.1731, there is no registry
utilized. 

(18) IANA new registries:
None used

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Date: 5/27/2014
Shepherd write-up (version 2/24/2012)
AD: Ted Lemon
WG Chairs: Donald Eastlake and Jon Hudson
Shepherd: Susan Hares

(1) type of RFC: Proposed standard.
Why appropriate: OAM relating to standard TRILL.
RFC updated: none since this is new OAM Features.
document format: states standard track.



(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

Performance Monitoring (PM) is a key aspect of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM). It allows network operators to
verify the Service Level Agreement (SLA) provided to customers, and
to detect network anomalies. This document specifies mechanisms for
Loss Measurement and Delay Measurement in TRILL networks.


Working Group Summary

Discussion on this topic has gone on for the last 2 years.
During the WG LC and discussion at the March IETF 89, the general
consensus was "document is ready for RFC".


Document Quality

The written text of this document is high.  The performance monitoring
issues clearly specified with clear descriptions of the mechanisms. 
This document is a pleasure to read!
 
The document has been co-authors by two groups implementing the
code for deployment (Cisco and Huawei).  The careful attention to
operational issues have shows in this draft.  No specific announcement
of the release date for  these TRILL PM implementations has been
made.  An implementation survey planned for June so a better
understanding of the deployments may align with the IESG review.
Other vendors have indicated consideration of the PM specification.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
  a) review of document for technical and editorial issues
  b) review of the WG lists messages, and IETF meetings
  c) nits run on the document.

nits: bogus warning with:
  == Line 1131 has weird spacing: '...  value    typ...'
RFC updates (see above)

Early review by OPSDIR, RTRDIR, and IANA will be request on 5/29/14 by the shepherd.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No, the implement-review cycle is the best review possible.
The textual review has been done by WG chairs and shepherd.

(5) Broader Review: An Early review of this document should be done by:
OPSDIR and RTRDIR. This review will be requested
by the shepherd on 5/28/14.

(6) Specific concerns for this document: None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

(8) IPR Disclosures none:
Authors responding to IPR query: Tissa Senevirathne, Donald Eastlake,
Taz Mizrahi, and S. Salam.  Unfortunately, D. Kumar did not respond.

(9) WG issues/10 WG appeal looming on horizon:
Consensus: Strong
Discussions in IETF were detailed and WG seems to agree.
The strong implementation link seems to give WG assurance.

No Appeal is looming.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.  1 bogus, 1 date Q, 3 References

bogus nit:
== Line 1125 has weird spacing: '...  value    typ...' -- seems invalid

other nits
a)  The document date (April 15, 2014) is 42 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?
b)  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework has been published as
    RFC 7174
c)  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework (ref. 'OAM-FRAMEWK')

d) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling has been published as
    RFC 7172

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

An Early review of this document should be done by:
OPSDIR and RTRDIR for performance monitoring.
This review will be requested\ by the shepherd on 5/28/14.

(13/14/15/16)  Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All reference normative or informative.
All normative except TRILL-FM have hit RFC. TRILL-FM will be
forwarded in package.

Downward normative reference to OAM-Framework is appropriate
in Shepherds opinion.

No RFC changes state due to this document.

(17) IANA considerations

The OpCodes utilize the same OpCodes as Y.1731 as follows:

      OpCode  OAM packet
      value    type
      ------  ----------

      45      1DM

      46      DMR

      47      DMM

      53      1SL

      54      SLR

      55      SLM

Since these opcodes are pre-assignmend to Y.1731, there is no registry
utilized. However, it may be wiser to ask IANA to create a OpCode use
registry that indicates the OpCodes are used from Y.1731.

(18) IANA new registries:
None used

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.