Subject: [Detnet] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 19:57:16 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I found the position of the OAM indicator to be somewhat confusing.  4.2 says
it happens in the d-cw layer but there is no mentioning of it in the
corresponding section, 4.2.1, instead buried in the S-label text.

More importantly, it is correct that an OAM packet cannot test the PREOF
functions because it does not have a d-cw, and therefore no sequence number? If
so, that seems like a significant capability gap.

4.2.2. I would like to see some guidance for the POF and PEF as to how long it
should store observed sequence numbers. This would appear to be one of the
harder design decisions in the space, and some general principles would be
helpful. For example, are there certain latency guarantees in the Detnet, so
that after some time the sequence number can be safely discarded?