Subject: [nvo3] Comments regarding draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement

From: Sam Aldrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:53:59 -0700

Authors,

I have few comments related to the draft.

Cheers
-sam

- The title should be OAM framework and requirements. 'Operational' is misleading
- I do not see much differentiation made between active and passive measurements, in each of those requirements. Which applies where is not clear enough
- Do not see the requirement and impact the OAM could cause in terms of performance and behavior of the network captured
- Do not see any indication of how the frame format should be and the encap requirements are
- Do not see any requirement in how the control plane and controller based network architectures could exist in harmony from operational point of view. Alarm correlation, simultaneous actions by various entities etc
- Performance measurement requirements for actual data and synthetic data is not clear
- Can the OAM be initiated from middle of the flow/path? Any requirements related to that?
- Do not see any requirement related to 'rate limiting'. Is it not required?

- In sec 	4.1, how are you able to tie various layers together? Each layer OAM frames could take different paths, not necessarily the same looking from each layer.
- In sec 4.2 - What are the requirements when there are different domain(network) owners and cannot perform end-to-end OAM?
- In sec 5.1. - Is the requirement valid when the Edge devices exist in different administrative domains?
- In sec 5.2.1 - (R3) where is the definition of all possible paths defined? Explain the what it means and how you plan to do that in IP networks. Are you requiring Entropy field for this? If so, where and how is it defined?
- R7 - Active or synthetic or both?
- R10 - What is the reference to definition of delay variation. I presume you are only referring to synthetic measurements. 
- R13 - How can you ensure a crafted packet take same path as data frame? Is there a implicit requirement that the header for data and OAM frame remains the same?
- R16 - is more of a speculation without knowing what it means by extensible. Should be removed unless it is made clear
- R17 - If the OAM header is same as data packet, this requirement do not apply correct?
- R21- IP layer is broad, could you specifically identify the type of notifications to be propagated to NVo3 layer?
- R22- without knowing what the independence and from what type of application, cannot adhere to the requirement.
- R23 - Please identify what is needed to prioritizing identifying the OAM frames and any necessary action it supposed to take.