Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-10-27
Requested 2022-10-13
Requested by John Scudder
Authors Greg Mirsky , Fabrice Theoleyre , Georgios Z. Papadopoulos , Carlos J. Bernardos , Balazs Varga , János Farkas
I-D last updated 2023-01-19
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -07 by Tal Mizrahi (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tal Mizrahi
State Completed
Review review-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-07-rtgdir-early-mizrahi-2023-01-19
Posted at
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 08)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2023-01-19

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for
publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time
during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose
of the early review depends on the stage that the document has

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

Document: draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-07
Reviewer: Tal Mizrahi
Review Date: January 19th, 2023
Intended Status: Informational

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.


The document summarizes the OAM requirements of DetNet networks. The
document provides a good background of the necessary OAM components
and presents the requirements of the OAM solutions.

- It would be helpful if the abstract would say that the target
audience of this document is the DetNet working group members, and is
intended to be used as a set of requirements for future work in the
DetNet working group.
- Section 3 - Operation:
  - For each of the sections 3.2-3.7 it would be helpful if you could
specify how PREOF affects each of these functions. For example,
continuity checking: what happens if MEP A and MEP B are two PREOF
endpoints - is continuity checking performed individually for each of
the PREOF paths, or is PREOF transparent to the CC?
  - "information is collected and sent using the DetNet Controller
Plane" - isn't it collected by the management plane? It may be worth
clarifying in the document the exact breakdown between the management
plane and the controller plane in the context of this document.
- Section 8 - Security Considerations:
  You may want to mention that specifically, the security
considerations of OAM in the context of DetNet are discussed in
Section 9 of [RFC 9055].

- Section 2.1 [RFC8655]  ==> Section 2.1 of [RFC8655]
- Maintenance Intermediate endPoint (MIP) ==> [according to IEEE
802.1] Maintenance Intermediate Point (MIP)
- In-band OAM is an active OAM is considered ==> In-band OAM is an
active OAM considered
- therefore, PM is a key topic ==> please add "PM" to the acronym list
- DetNet service sub-layer functions using a sequence number. ==>
DetNet service sub-layer functions use sequence numbers for PREOF.
- Control Plane / Controller Plane - please be consistent, or clarify
the difference between the two terms.
- perfromence metris ==> performance metrics
- systemto ==> system to
- downstream MEP ==> the term is used without definition