Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 07:13:33 -0700

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.

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.