Subject: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05

From: Shwetha Bhandari via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 04:19:46 -0700

Reviewer: Shwetha Bhandari
Review result: Ready

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts per guidelines in RFC5706 .
Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Summary:
This document specified Deterministic Networking data plane over MPLS Packet
Switched Networks.

Focussing the review checklist from RFC5706:
- This document does not specify the controller and OAM function - It defers
DetNet MPLS to use an associated controller and Operations, Administration, and
 Maintenance (OAM) functions that are defined outside of this  document.
- It discusses the deployment scenario.
- There is a Management and Control Information Summary section describes the
information needed by service and forwarding layers of the data plane from
DetNet controller plane.  This includes reference to existing MPLS label
advertisement mechanisms needed for operationalizing DetNet MPLS data plane. -
For connectivity verification and monitoring: this document follows procedures
set out in rfc5085 for Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity
Verification(VCCV) and supports In-Band VCCV (type 1) only. I assume this would
defer a detailed discussion to a different draft produced by detnet wg
(draft-mirsky-detnet-mpls-oam-01?) However this is not called out in this
document. - There is also a dedicated document  to specify data model for
provisioning of end-to-end DetNet service - draft-ietf-detnet-yang-05, hence
not covered in this document.

Hence with regards to operational considerations listed in RFC 5706 I dont see
any issues in this document.

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 02:26:20 +0000

Hi, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls Authors,

Please find one comment inline.

> On Mar 13, 2020, at 7:19 AM, Shwetha Bhandari via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> document.

I agree with this perspective, in which a VCCV type can be specified based on the dataplane itself. In this context, I think saying "VCCV Tyoe 1 only” as the document specifies is the best approach. I would add not only RFC5085 but also RFC 5885 as references for this, since they started as a common document.

However, I do not believe ietf-detnet-mpls should specify what goes over that OAM channel, and not add forward references to individual drafts. 

A statement like “OAM for further study” should suffice. And the document already has:

   Additional considerations on DetNet-specific OAM are subjects for
   further study.

So that sounds as detailed as known for now.

Thanks,

Carlos.

> - There is also a dedicated document  to specify data model for
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-DIR mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir