Hi, Joel,
Many thanks for your review! Please see inline.
On Jun 30, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli
Review result: Has Nits
I have reviewed
draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06 as par of the OPS directorate review cycle
forIETF last call.
In general I think this document is ready to go however I have a couple of
concerns that should probably at least be discussed prior to IESG review.
From my vantage point the document is not so much a description of a use case
or requirements as it is the architectural wrapper around
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping. It's most helpful in my opinion to review
this
one as though the other one was the companion document, from this vantage
point
I think the later document is effectively normatively referenced. Similarly
the
readiness of the later document (which is a bit earlier in it's lifecycle)
raises the question of whether this one is ready to go.
I agree that this is not so much a use-case document — however, I would not
characterize this document as standing atop draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping. In
fact, the monitoring system described, as the text already shows, can use other
OAM protocols and formats. That is, if the PMS uses for example BFD, and
therefore it does not use RFC 8029, then it cannot use
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping (because those are extensions of MPLS LSP
Ping). Further, the PMS can perfectly well (as already described) function with
RFC 8029 and without draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping.
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping provides very useful enhancements that the
system can leverage, but the system is not wrapped around the specification of
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping.
We tried to clarify this a bit in the version just submitted.
in the security considerations section the document notes:
As mentioned in the introduction, a PMS monitoring packet should
never leave the domain where it originated. It therefore should
never use stale MPLS or IGP routing information.
I think is is more accurate to say:
Use of stale MPLS or IGP routing information could cause a PMS monitoring
packet to leave the domain where it originated. PMS monitoring packets should
not be sent using stale MPLS or IGP routing information.
As it is necessary to know that the information is stale is order to follow
the
instruction, as is the case with for example convergence events that may be
ongoing at the time of diagnostic measurement.
Agreed. We added this text. Note please that additionally, we significantly
revamped the Security Considerations section.
Thanks!
—
Carlos Pignataro, carlos(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound
more photosynthesis."