Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-10
Requested revision 10 (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-08-29
Requested 2022-08-17
Requested by Andrew Alston
Authors Frank Brockners , Shwetha Bhandari
I-D last updated 2022-08-30
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Mach Chen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -11 by Mirja K├╝hlewind (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Susan Hares (diff)
General last call review
Assignment Reviewer Mach Chen
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 13)
Result Has issues
Completed 2022-08-30
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see Although these comments
are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could
consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive,
and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-10
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: 2022-08-22
IETF LC End Date:
Intended Status: Standards Track

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.

The draft is well written and easy to read.

Section 3,
"The O-bit MUST be handled following the rules in [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet]."

According to [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet], a NSH-encapsulated packet with IOAM
will not be considered as OAM packet. Thus, it's better to state that "the
O-bit MUST NOT be set" for packet with IOAM header in this document.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
Quoted from Section 2.2, last paragraph of RFC 8300, it says:
"...Packets with Next Protocol values not supported SHOULD be silently dropped
      by default, although an implementation MAY provide a configuration
      parameter to forward them."

With above requirement, when insert an IOAM header to a NSH-encapsulated
packet, the encapsulating node MUST make sure that every nodes (e.g., SFF, SF)
along the service path supports IOAM, otherwise, the packet will be silently
dropped. IMHO, this should be discussed in the document to make this more


Best regards,