Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04

From: David Black via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 07:46:13 -0800

Reviewer: David Black
Review result: Ready with Nits

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
[email-masked] if you reply to or forward this review.

I did not notice any transport-related issues, but found a few editorial nits
that could use some attention:

The draft covers only the F (fault) and P (performance) aspects of the
FCAPS set of management/maintenance domains.  It might be useful to
say something about where to look for requirements-related information
on the other three.

Please double-check whether the IEEE 802.1Q reference is up to date.

Please explain what P nodes are in Figures 1 and 2.

Figures 1 and 2 include four OAM layers, of which this draft is only
concerned with two, Service OAM and Network OAM.  Section 2.1
should indicate that these two layers are the focus of the draft.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:51:38 -0500

Hi David,

> say something about where to look for requirements-related information

For Configuration and Security (beyond the Security Considerations
section of the document), perhaps this document should refer readers
to the standards for the detailed OAM protocol in use. On Accounting,
I think it is pretty much out of scope for this document.

> Please double-check whether the IEEE 802.1Q reference is up to date.

This won't be published as an RFC for months. I think whether the IEEE
802.1Q reference is completely up to date and in the format preferred
by the IEEE is an excellent thing for the RFC Editor to check as they
normally do.  I will update the year from 2014 to 2018.

> Please explain what P nodes are in Figures 1 and 2.

OK.

> should indicate that these two layers are the focus of the draft.

OK.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email-masked]