Framework of Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework and RFC 9551, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
I assume the responsible AD is OK with exceeding the recommended author count?

The MUST in Section 1.1 seems out of place to me.  That is, definitions seem like a peculiar place to establish normative interoperability requirements.

I would also argue you don't really need any of the BCP 14 words in Section 6, but maybe that's a style choice.  Each of these say the same thing to me if you use "must", for example, because what you're going for here is framework compliance, not protocol interoperability.

[Ballot comment]
** Section 2.
  Many legacy OAM tools can be used in DetNet networks, but they are
  not able to cover all the aspects of deterministic networking.

What is a legacy tool?

** Section 2.

  For example, appropriate placing of MEPs along the path of a DetNet
  flow is not always a trivial task and may require proper design,
  together with the design of the service component of a given DetNet
  flow.

Agreed.  However, it seems me to that there is a missing sentence explicitly linking OAM to placing these MEPs.

** Section 8.  This section seems to be missing mentioned that OAM mechanism could be tampered with depending on their construction and that some OAM tools are dual-use potentially enabling reconnaissance by an attacker.  These and other topics are covered in the Security Considerations of RFC7276.

** Section 9.  The GENART reviewer (Mallory Knodel) also notes that OAM mechanism can be used as the further basis of reconnaissance by fingerprinting their features.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document, I found it easy to read and understand.


I only have some minor comments that may help improve the document:

Minor level comments:

(1) p 6, sec 3.1.  Information Collection

  Information about the state of the network can be collected using
  several mechanisms.  Some protocols, e.g., Simple Network Management
  Protocol, send queries.  Others, e.g., YANG-based data models,
  generate notifications based on the publish-subscribe method.  In
  either way, information is collected and sent using the DetNet
  Controller Plane.

A few suggestions:
1. For SNMP, perhaps "polls for updated data" rather than "send queries".
2. YANG data models don't in themselves generate notifications, but only define notifications that could be generated when particular events occur.  But really, it is protocols, such as YANG Push, that are used to setup subscriptions for the data defined in the YANG data models to be published either on a periodic basis, or when the underlying data changes.


(2) p 10, sec 5.1.  Replication / Elimination

      Figure 1: Packet Replication: S transmits twice the same data
                        packet, to nodes A and B.

I wasn't really sure what this diagram was intending to convey (i.e., the text only mentions S, A, and B and none of the other nodes in the diagram).  E.g., perhaps make is clearer that the desination is R rather than A or B?


(3) p 11, sec 6.  Requirements

  6.  OAM methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the
        forward direction and out-of-bound notification in the reverse
        direction, i.e., towards the ingress MEP.

Given that this is "MAY" is doesn't appear to technically be an actual requirement, since implementations are not required (or even recommended) to support it.


(4) p 11, sec 6.  Requirements

  8.  DetNet OAM MAY support bi-directional OAM methods for bi-
        directional DetNet flows.  OAM test packets used for monitoring
        and measurements MUST be in-band in both directions.

Given that this is "MAY" is doesn't appear to technically be an actual requirement, since implementations are not required (or even recommended) to support it.



Nit level comments:

(5) p 10, sec 6.  Requirements

  2.  It MUST be possible to initiate a DetNet OAM session from using
        any of DetNet Controller Plane solution, e.g., centralized
        controller.

Perhaps "by using any of the DetNet Controller Plane solutions"?

Regards,
Rob

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-09, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-12-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, lberger@labn.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Framework of Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Deterministic Networking WG (detnet)
to consider the following document: - 'Framework of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for
  Deterministic Networking (DetNet)'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-12-19. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Deterministic Networking (DetNet), as defined in RFC 8655, aims to
  provide bounded end-to-end latency on top of the network
  infrastructure, comprising both Layer 2 bridged and Layer 3 routed
  segments.  This document's primary purpose is to detail the specific
  requirements of the Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
  recommended to maintain a deterministic network.  The document will
  be used in future work that defines the applicability of and
  extension of OAM protocols for a deterministic network.  With the
  implementation of the OAM framework in DetNet, an operator will have
  a real-time view of the network infrastructure regarding the
  network's ability to respect the Service Level Objective, such as
  packet delay, delay variation, and packet loss ratio, assigned to
  each DetNet flow.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

I think the document has good support from the reasonable sized set of
WG participants interested in this problem space.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing notable

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

N/A. This document is a framework.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This work does relate to work done in MPLS and PALS.  There is a joint
design team working related topics so all interested parties in those
working groups should already be familiar with this work.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A as this is a framework.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A, no modules defined.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A as this is a framework.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I really don't "get" what you are ask to be done here. I've review the
list and don't see any specific additions to the review that I already
performed. FWIW Here's something we put together 7+ years ago
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/teas/wiki/PSGuidelines

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])?

Informational

    Why is this the proper type of RFC?

It's a framework for future protocol specifications

    Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Yes

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, no interesting discssion. For IPR poll, see thread at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/7SN8if8kdhm5luwiEkvMgbRqrc4/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such?

yes

    If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There are currently 6 total.  The authors believe all listed have
provided essential contributions in the course of developing this
document.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No, N/A.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document is a framework, so N/A.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

I think the document has good support from the reasonable sized set of
WG participants interested in this problem space.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing notable

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

N/A. This document is a framework.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This work does relate to work done in MPLS and PALS.  There is a joint
design team working related topics so all interested parties in those
working groups should already be familiar with this work.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A as this is a framework.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A, no modules defined.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A as this is a framework.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I really don't "get" what you are ask to be done here. I've review the
list and don't see any specific additions to the review that I already
performed. FWIW Here's something we put together 7+ years ago
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/teas/wiki/PSGuidelines

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])?

Informational

    Why is this the proper type of RFC?

It's a framework for future protocol specifications

    Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Yes

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, no interesting discssion. For IPR poll, see thread at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/7SN8if8kdhm5luwiEkvMgbRqrc4/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such?

yes

    If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There are currently 6 total.  The authors believe all listed have
provided essential contributions in the course of developing this
document.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No, N/A.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document is a framework, so N/A.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/