Subject: Re: [Raw] New Version Notification for draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-02.txt

From: Fabrice Theoleyre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 16:03:47 +0200

Dear all,

We just submitted a novel version of the draft:
1/ we addressed the comments of Rex
2/ we addressed the comments of Greg, who is now also an author
3/ we partly addressed the comments of Lou, so that the draft now focuses only on wireless specificities. Up to now, we modified the introduction and the abstract, we have to make the same job for the rest of the draft.

We have also to describe more clearly the relationship with OAM for detnet (Janos' comment)

Best regards,
Fabrice

> Le 11 avr. 2020 à 15:53, [email-masked] a écrit :
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Fabrice Theoleyre and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support
> Revision:	02
> Title:		Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) features for RAW
> Document date:	2020-04-11
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		11
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-02.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-02
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-02
> 
> Abstract:
>   Some critical applications may use a wireless infrastructure.
>   However, wireless networks exhibit a bandiwidth of several orders of
>   magnitude lower than wired networks.  Besides, wireless transmissions
>   are lossy by nature; the probability that a packet cannot be decoded
>   correctly by the receiver may be quite high.  In these conditions,
>   guaranteeing the network infrastructure works properly is
>   particularly challenging, since we need to address some issues
>   specific to wireless networks.  This document lists the requirements
>   of the Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) features
>   recommended to construct a predictable communication infrastructure
>   on top of a collection of wireless segments.  This document describes
>   the benefits, problems, and trade-offs for using OAM in wireless
>   networks to achieve Service Level Objectives (SLO).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
>

---

From: Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 08:07:03 +0200

Dear Fabrice, Georgios and Grek,

I am adding comments here to the whole document. See below XV>>

kind regards
Xavi
-----

   Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) features for RAW
                   draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-02

Abstract

XV>> typo here. bandwidth

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 13, 2020.

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            OAM features for RAW                April 2020

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Role of OAM in RAW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Information Collection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Continuity Check  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Connectivity Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Route Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.5.  Fault Verification/detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.6.  Fault Isolation/identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Administration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Collection of metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Worst-case metrics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Energy efficiency constraint  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Multipath Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Replication / Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  Resource Reservation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.4.  Soft transition after reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            OAM features for RAW                April 2020

1.  Introduction

   Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) is an effort that extends
   DetNet to approach end-to-end deterministic performances over a
   network that includes scheduled wireless segments.
XV>> is that true? what if the network is not scheduled per se but enables
through
some sort of redundancy to achieve probabilistically some sort of higher
levels of
reliability?

   In wired
   networks, many approaches to Quality of Service (QoS) tried to
   implement traffic differentiation so that routers handle differently
   each type of packets.  However, this differentiated treatment was
   expensive for most applications.

   Deterministic Networking (DetNet) [RFC8655] has proposed to provide a
   bounded end-to-end latency on top of the network infrastructure,
   comprising both Layer 2 bridged and Layer 3 routed segments.  Their
   work encompasses the data plane, OAM, time synchronization,
   management, control, and security aspects.

   However, wireless networks create specific challenges.  First of all,
   radio bandwdidth is significantly lower than for wired networks.  In
XV>> typo here bandwidth
   these conditions, the volume of signaling messages has to be very
   limited.

XV>> well 802.11ax and 802.11be are not that limited.

   Even worse, wireless links are lossy: a layer 2
   transmission may or may not be decoded correctly by the receiver,
   depending on a large set of parameters.  Thus, providing high
   reliability through only wireless segments only is particularly
   challenging.

XV>> I would remove the second only above.

   Last but not least, radio links present very unstable
   characteristics.  If the wireless networks use an unlicensed band,
   packet losses are not anymore temporally and spatially independent.
   Typically, links may exhibit a very bursty characteristic, where
   several consecutive packets may be dropped.  Thus, providing
   availability and reliability on top of the wireless infrastructure
   requires specific layer 3 mechanisms to counteract these bursty
   losses.

   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Tools are of
   primary importance for IP networks [RFC7276].  It defines a toolset
   for fault detection and isolation, and for performance measurement.

   The main purpose of this document is to detail the specific
   requirements of the OAM features recommended to construct a
   predictable communication infrastructure on top of a collection of
   wireless segments.  This document describes the benefits, problems,
   and trade-offs for using OAM in wireless networks to provide
   availability and predictability.

   In this document, the term OAM will be used according to its
   definition specified in [RFC6291].  We expect to implement an OAM
   framework in RAW networks to maintain a real-time view of the network

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            OAM features for RAW                April 2020

   infrastructure, and its ability to respect the Service Level
   Objectives (SLO), such as delay and reliability, assigned to each
   data flow.

XV>> somewhere in the intro: it would  be adequate to refer to the use
cases draft and point out when
OAM is needed with respect to the presented use cases. I think this will
facilitate the
reader to understand where (in which use cases) these wireless segments are
used and how OAM will make our life easier.

1.1.  Terminology

   o  OAM entity: a data flow to be controlled;

   o  Maintenance End Point (MEP): OAM devices crossed when entering/
      exiting the network.  In RAW, it corresponds mostly to the source
      or destination of a data flow.  OAM message can be exchanges
      between two MEPs;

   o  Maintenance Intermediate end Point (MIP): OAM devices along the
      flow; OAM messages can be exchanged between a MEP and a MIP;

   o  Defect: a temporary change in the network (e.g. a radio link which
      is broken due to a mobile obstacle);

   o  Fault: a definite change which may affect the network performance,
      e.g. a node runs out of energy.

1.2.  Acronyms

   OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintanence
XV>>typo here Maintenance

   DetNet Deterministic Networking

   SLO Service Level Objective

   QoS Quality of Service

   SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol

   SDN Software Defined Network

1.3.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            OAM features for RAW                April 2020

2.  Role of OAM in RAW

   RAW networks expect to make the communications reliable and
   predictable on top of a wireless network infrastructure.  Most
   critical applications will define an SLO to be required for the data

XV> a SLO instead of an SLO

   flows it generates.  RAW considers network plane protocol elements
   such as OAM to improve the RAW operation at the service and the
   forwarding sub-layers.

   To respect strict guarantees, RAW relies on an orchestrator able to
   monitor and maintain the network.  Typically, a Software Defined
   Network (SDN) controller is in charge of scheduling the transmissions
   in the deployed network, based on the radio link characteristics, SLO
   of the flows, the number of packets to forward.  Thus, resources have
   to be provisioned a priori to handle any defect.  OAM represents the
   core of the over provisioning process, and maintains the network
   operational by updating the schedule dynamically.
XV> this seems to be an L3-like schedule or a path computation engine. If
we are
orchestrating different joint segments I understand that some of the
technologies
below will have their own scheduling/traffic management mechanisms and this
SDN-like
controller defined here will interact with them. Would be good to clarify
this maybe
with a figure.

   Fault-tolerance also assumes that multiple paths have to be
XV> Paths apply to multihop networks. What if we join segments each one of
them
being a hub and spoke network?
I am thinking in a topology like WiFi_Node -> AP-> 5G/LTE radio

   provisioned so that an end-to-end circuit keeps on existing whatever
   the conditions.  The replication/elimination processes (PREOF) on a
   node is typically controlled by the central controller/orchestrator.
   OAM is in charge of controlling that PREOF is working properly on a
   node and within the domain.

   To be energy-efficient, reserving some dedicated out-of-band
   resources for OAM seems idealistic,
XV>> to give more strength to this statement, maybe develop a little bit
further
why out of band OAM is not possible?
   and only in-band solutions are considered here.

   RAW supports both proactive and on-demand troubleshooting.
XV>> same here, maybe detail further when proactive and when on-demand is
needed
or used.

3.  Operation

   OAM features will enable RAW with robust operation both for
   forwarding and routing purposes.

3.1.  Information Collection

   Several solutions (e.g., Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP),
   YANG-based data models) are already in charge of collecting the
   statistics.  That way, we can encapsulate these statistics in
   specific monitoring packets, to send them to the controller.

3.2.  Continuity Check

   We need to verify that two endpoints are connected.  In other words,
   there exists "one" way to deliver the packets between two endpoints A
   and B.

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            OAM features for RAW                April 2020

3.3.  Connectivity Verification

   Additionally, to the Continuity Check, we have to verify the
   connectivity.  This verification considers additional constraints,
   i.e., the absence of misconnection.

   In particular, the resources have to be reserved by a given flow, and
   no packets from other flows steal the corresponding resources.
   Similarly, the destination does not receive packets from different
   flows through its interface.

   It is worth noting that the control and data packets may not follow
   the same path, and the connectivity verification has to be conducted
   in-band without impacting the data traffic.  Test packets must share
   the fate with the monitored data traffic without introducing
   congestion in normal network conditions.

3.4.  Route Tracing

   Ping and traceroute are two very common tools for diagnostic.  They
   help to identify a subset of the list of routers in the route.
   However, to be predictable, resources are reserved per flow in RAW.
   Thus, we need to define route tracing tools able to track the route
   for a specific flow.

 XV>> question here: we need maybe even after to be able to identify flows.
 Not sure if this is detailed along this section. just have a thought on
this.

   Wireless networks are meshed by nature:
XV> *not true at all*. most LPWAN are not meshed. Most cellular networks
are not meshed.
most WiFi networks are not meshed. Most BLE networks are not meshed. Some
802.15.4 are meshed.

   we have many redundant radio
   links.  These meshed networks are both an asset and a drawback: while
   several paths exist between two endpoints, we should choose the most
   efficient one(s), concerning specifically the reliability, and the
   delay.

XV>> maybe the point here is to focus on the fact that we have different
segments where a
segment can be a point to point link, a full mesh or something hybrid.
(e.g Wifi station-AP is a point to point link). The point is to understand
if we can have
redundant segments so as to exploit segment redundancy.

   Thus, multipath routing can be considered to make the network fault-
   tolerant.  Even better, we can exploit the broadcast nature of
   wireless networks to exploit meshed multipath routing: we may have
   multiple Maintenance Intermediate Endpoints for each hop in the path.
   In that way, each Maintenance Intermediate Endpoint has several
   possible next hops in the forwarding plane.  Thus, all the possible
   paths between two maintenance endpoints should be retrieved.
XV>> as said. This applies to 15.4 perfectly but not sure if it can apply
to other technologies.
Could we maybe consider this vision from a segment perspective? Each
segment may have certain
properties to address redundancy (e.g packet repetitions in NB-IoT, MIMO
and the use of different modulations in WiFi)

3.5.  Fault Verification/detection

   RAW expects to operate fault-tolerant networks.  Thus, we need
   mechanisms able to detect faults, before they impact the network
   performance.

   The network has to detect when a fault occurred, i.e., the network
   has deviated from its expected behavior.  While the network must
   report an alarm, the cause may not be identified precisely.  For

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            OAM features for RAW                April 2020

   instance, the end-to-end reliability has decreased significantly, or
   a buffer overflow occurs.

3.6.  Fault Isolation/identification

   The network has isolated and identified the cause of the fault.  For
   instance, the quality of a specific link has decreased, requiring
   more retransmissions, or the level of external interference has
   locally increased.

4.  Administration

   The network has to expose a collection of metrics to support an
   operator making proper decisions, including:

   o  Packet losses: the time-window average and maximum values of the
      number of packet losses have to be measured.  Many critical
      applications stop to work if a few consecutive packets are
      dropped;

   o  Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) is a very common metric
      in wireless to denote the link quality.  The radio chipset is in
      charge of translating a received signal strength into a normalized
      quality indicator;

   o  Delay: the time elapsed between a packet generation / enqueuing
      and its reception by the next hop;
 XV>> maybe also consider segment-delay? i.e the sum of delays in the
internals of the segment

   o  Buffer occupancy: the number of packets present in the buffer, for
      each of the existing flows.

   These metrics should be collected:

   o  per virtual circuit to measure the end-to-end performance for a
      given flow.  Each of the paths has to be isolated in multipath
      routing strategies;

XV>> this is what I meant before. :)

   o  per radio channel to measure, e.g., the level of external
      interference, and to be able to apply counter-measures (e.g.
      blacklisting)

   o  per device to detect misbehaving node, when it relays the packets
      of several flows.

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            OAM features for RAW                April 2020

4.1.  Collection of metrics

   We have to minimize the number of statistics / measurements to
   exchange:

   o  energy efficiency: low-power devices have to limit the volume of
      monitoring information since every bit consumes energy.

   o  bandwidth: wireless networks exhibit a bandwidth significantly
      lower than wired, best-effort networks.

   o  per-packet cost: it is often more expensive to send several
      packets instead of combining them in a single link-layer frame.

   Thus, localized and centralized mechanisms have to be combined
   together, and additional control packets have to be triggered only
   after a fault detection.

4.2.  Worst-case metrics

   RAW aims to enable real-time communications on top of a heterogeneous
   architecture.  Since wireless networks are known to be lossy, RAW has
   to implement strategies to improve reliability on top of unreliable
   links.  Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) has typically to enable
XV>> ...(ARQ) has been typically used to ...

   retransmissions based on the end-to-end reliability and latency
   requirements.

   To make correct decisions, the controller needs to know the
   distribution of packet losses for each flow, and each hop of the
   paths.  In other words, the average end-to-end statistics are not
   enough.  They must allow the controller to predict the worst-case.

4.3.  Energy efficiency constraint

   RAW targets also low-power wireless networks, where energy represents
   a key constraint.  Thus, we have to take care of power and bandwidth
   consumption.  The following techniques aim to reduce the cost of such
   maintenance:

      piggybacking: some control information are inserted in the data
      packets if they do not fragment the packet (i.e., the MTU is not
      exceeded).  Information Elements represent a standardized way to
      handle such information;

XV>> not sure LDACS and LTE-alike have IEs in their MAC header structure.
   Cellular technologies have a dedicated control channel while others
don't

      flags/fields: we have to set-up flags in the packets to monitor to
XV>> ... to be able to monitor ... remove to monitor (before)
      be able to monitor the forwarding process accurately.  A sequence
      number field may help to detect packet losses.  Similarly, path
      inference tools such as [ipath] insert additional information in

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            OAM features for RAW                April 2020

      the headers to identify the path followed by a packet a
      posteriori.

5.  Maintenance

   RAW needs to implement a self-healing and self-optimization approach.
   The network must continuously retrieve the state of the network, to
   judge about the relevance of a reconfiguration, quantifying:

      the cost of the sub-optimality: resources may not be used
      optimally (e.g., a better path exists);

      the reconfiguration cost: the controller needs to trigger some
      reconfigurations.  For this transient period, resources may be
      twice reserved, and control packets have to be transmitted.

   Thus, reconfiguration may only be triggered if the gain is
   significant.

5.1.  Multipath Routing

   To be fault-tolerant, several paths can be reserved between two
   maintenance endpoints.  They must be node-disjoint so that a path can
   be available at any time.

5.2.  Replication / Elimination

   When multiple paths are reserved between two maintenance endpoints,
   they may decide to replicate the packets to introduce redundancy, and
   thus to alleviate transmission errors and collisions.  For instance,
   in Figure 1, the source node S is transmitting the packet to both
   parents, nodes A and B.  Each maintenance endpoint will decide to
   trigger the replication/elimination process when a set of metrics
   passes through a threshold value.

                          ===> (A) => (C) => (E) ===
                        //        \\//   \\//       \\
              source (S)          //\\   //\\         (R) (root)
                        \\       //  \\ //  \\      //
                          ===> (B) => (D) => (F) ===

   Figure 1: Packet Replication: S transmits twice the same data packet,
                     to its DP (A) and to its AP (B).

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            OAM features for RAW                April 2020

5.3.  Resource Reservation

   Because the QoS criteria associated with a path may degrade, the
   network has to provision additional resources along the path.  We
   need to provide mechanisms to patch a schedule (changing the channel
   offset, allocating more timeslots, changing the path, etc.).

XV>> for me this is an interaction with the particular controller of the
particular segment. The OAM decision reaches the segment representative and
in
there a particular segment controller e.g 6tisch SF or WiFi trigger frame
controller
is notified to do some change in the operation of the segment.

5.4.  Soft transition after reconfiguration

   Since RAW expects to support real-time flows, we have to support
   soft-reconfiguration, where the novel resources are reserved before
   the ancient ones are released.  Some mechanisms have to be proposed
   so that packets are forwarded through the novel track only when the
   resources are ready to be used, while maintaining the global state
   consistent (no packet reordering, duplication, etc.)

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actionable requirements for IANA.  This section
   can be removed before the publication.

7.  Security Considerations

   This section will be expanded in future versions of the draft.

8.  Acknowledgments

   TBD

9.  Informative References

   [ipath]    Gao, Y., Dong, W., Chen, C., Bu, J., Wu, W., and X. Liu,
              "iPath: path inference in wireless sensor networks.",
              2016, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2014.2371459>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6291]  Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
              D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
              Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            OAM features for RAW                April 2020

   [RFC7276]  Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
              Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
              and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8655]  Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
              "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.

Authors' Addresses

   Fabrice Theoleyre
   CNRS
   Building B
   300 boulevard Sebastien Brant - CS 10413
   Illkirch - Strasbourg  67400
   FRANCE

   Phone: +33 368 85 45 33
   Email: [email-masked]
   URI:   http://www.theoleyre.eu

   Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
   IMT Atlantique
   Office B00 - 102A
   2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
   Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes  35510
   FRANCE

   Phone: +33 299 12 70 04
   Email: [email-masked]

   Grek Mirsky
   ZTE Corp.

   Email: [email-masked]

Theoleyre, et al.       Expires October 13, 2020               [Page 11]

Missatge de Fabrice Theoleyre <[email-masked]> del dia ds., 11 d’abr.
2020 a les 16:03:

> 3/ we partly addressed the comments of Lou, so that the draft now focuses
> only on wireless specificities. Up to now, we modified the introduction and
> the abstract, we have to make the same job for the rest of the draft.
>
> > URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-02.txt
> > Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support/
> > Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-02
> > Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support
> > Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-02
> >
> > Abstract:
> --
> RAW mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raw
>

-- 
Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
Wireless Networks Lab

*Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)Professor*
(+34) 646 633 681
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain

-- 

INFORMACIÓ SOBRE PROTECCIÓ DE DADES DE LA UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE 
CATALUNYA (UOC)

Us informem que les vostres dades identificatives i les 
contingudes en els missatges electrònics i fitxers adjunts es poden 
incorporar a les nostres bases de dades amb la finalitat de gestionar les 
relacions i comunicacions vinculades a la UOC, i que es poden conservar 
mentre es mantingui la relació. Si ho voleu, podeu exercir el dret a 
accedir a les vostres dades, rectificar-les i suprimir-les i altres drets 
reconeguts normativament adreçant-vos a l'adreça de correu emissora o a 
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>.

Aquest missatge i qualsevol 
fitxer que porti adjunt, si escau, tenen el caràcter de confidencials i 
s'adrecen únicament a la persona o entitat a qui s'han enviat.

Així 
mateix, posem a la vostra disposició un delegat de protecció de dades que 
no només s'encarregarà de supervisar tots els tractaments de dades de la 
nostra entitat, sinó que us podrà atendre per a qualsevol qüestió 
relacionada amb el tractament de dades. La seva adreça de contacte és 
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>.
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE 
LA UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE CATALUNYA (UOC)
Os informamos de que vuestros 
datos identificativos y los contenidos en los mensajes electrónicos y 
ficheros adjuntos pueden incorporarse a nuestras bases de datos con el fin 
de gestionar las relaciones y comunicaciones vinculadas a la UOC, y de que 
pueden conservarse mientras se mantenga la relación. Si lo deseáis, podéis 
ejercer el derecho a acceder a vuestros datos, rectificarlos y suprimirlos 
y otros derechos reconocidos normativamente dirigiéndoos a la dirección de 
correo emisora o a [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>.
Este mensaje y 
cualquier fichero que lleve adjunto, si procede, tienen el carácter de 
confidenciales y se dirigen únicamente a la persona o entidad a quien se 
han enviado.
Así mismo, ponemos a vuestra disposición a un delegado de 
protección de datos que no solo se encargará de supervisar todos los 
tratamientos de datos de nuestra entidad, sino que podrá atenderos para 
cualquier cuestión relacionada con el tratamiento de datos. Su dirección de 
contacto es [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>.

UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE 
CATALUNYA (UOC) DATA PROTECTION INFORMATION
Your personal data and the data 
contained in your email messages and attached files may be stored in our 
databases for the purpose of maintaining relations and communications 
linked to the UOC, and the data may be stored for as long as these 
relations and communications are maintained. If you so wish, you can 
exercise your rights to access, rectification and erasure of your data, and 
any other legally held rights, by writing to the sender’s email address or 
to [email-masked] <http://[email-masked]>.
This message and, where 
applicable, any attachments are confidential and addressed solely to the 
individual or organization they were sent to.
The UOC has a data protection 
officer who not only supervises the data processing carried out at the 
University, but who will also respond to any questions you may have about 
this data processing. You can contact our data protection officer by 
writing to [email-masked] <http://[email-masked]>.

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 21:46:12 -0700

Fabrice,

Comments:

In 1. Introduction

> Thus, providing

Where I was raised, layer 4 was where reliability mechanisms (e.g. TCP)
were to be found. TCP is very good at counteracting bursty losses.
  The other place that bursty losses can be countered is at layer 1
utilizing Forward Error Correction (FEC) techniques. In my experience
in MF, LF, HF radio they can be quite effective, albeit bandwidth-
expensive.

>    QoS Quality of Service

Is this to mean quality of service measured or quality of service
control?  Usually qos means the former; QoS control the latter.

Suggest adding FEC to acronym list.

> 7.  Security Considerations

The control traffic (e.g. OAM) must be authentic. I can think of no
occasions where that would not be the case.

b

On Sat, 2020-04-11 at 16:03 +0200, Fabrice Theoleyre wrote:
> 3/ we partly addressed the comments of Lou, so that the draft now
> focuses only on wireless specificities. Up to now, we modified the
> introduction and the abstract, we have to make the same job for the
> rest of the draft.
>

---

From: John Grant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 11:44:41 +0100

> in MF, LF, HF radio they can be quite effective, albeit bandwidth-
In cellular there is also acknowledge/retransmit in the lower layers; I 
guess it'd be layer 2 so still not layer 3. One issue the mobile 
industry has is that TCP assumes a packet that gets through at the 
second attempt has been delayed by congestion, and reacts inappropriately.

-- 
John Grant
Nine Tiles, Cambridge, England
+44 1223 862599 and +44 1223 511455
http://www.ninetiles.com

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 15:31:12 +0200

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:44 PM John Grant <[email-masked]> wrote:

> guess it'd be layer 2 so still not layer 3. One issue the mobile industry
> has is that TCP assumes a packet that gets through at the second attempt
> has been delayed by congestion, and reacts inappropriately.
>

For RAW technology there needs to be reliable technique in L1 or L2 so that
we can call it reliable wireless. In cellular it is reliable techniques.

AB

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 11:12:55 -0700

Ethernet, for example, has a frame check sequence and a link-level (aka
layer 2) retransmit on error.  Back in the '80s there were some
experiments (by radio amateurs if memory serves) that found that end-
end (layer 4) error control was more efficient than per hop.
Nonetheless both exist.  
  John, you are correct -- TCP detected a missing packet but it had no
idea why the packet was missing. And the reactions (partially shutting
the send window) assumed that a missing packet was caused by congestion
(e.g. router queue overflow). That, of course, is a pretty naive, and
often wrong, conclusion. Especially in wireless.  
  If I'm reading what the OAM folks on this list are telling us is that
we need more information -- more 'why' in the missing packet event???
For that, you're gonna want to bore down into base station MAC
operations (via the MIB values).
  My intent here is to fix the wording in the draft to avoid attracting
the protocol police.

On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 15:31 +0200, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> >  In cellular there is also acknowledge/retransmit in the lower
> > layers; I guess it'd be layer 2 so still not layer 3. One issue the
> > mobile industry has is that TCP assumes a packet that gets through
> > at the second attempt has been delayed by congestion, and reacts
> > inappropriately.
> For RAW technology there needs to be reliable technique in L1 or L2
> so that we can call it reliable wireless. In cellular it is reliable
> techniques.
> 
> AB
> -- 
> RAW mailing list
> [email-masked]