Re: [Last-Call] [sfc] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11.txt> Availability in SFC OAM (Service Function Chaining (SFC) Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Framework) to Informational RFC

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Greg,

This is what the SFC chairs already said about your comment on “availability": https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/1r8s3iB139-ETZtGskpocWxC3Ao/.

That reads quite terminal and unequivocal to me.

Entertaining once again your comment for completeness, it seems like ITU defined no less than two hundred thousand (200,000) terms:
https://www.itu.int/net/ITU-R/index.asp?redirect=true&category=information&rlink=terminology-database&lang=en&adsearch=&SearchTerminology=&collection=&sector=&language=all&part=abbreviationterm&kind=anywhere&StartRecord=1&NumberRecords=50
Do you suggest that words using within RFC series document ought to cross-reference definitions throughout external dictionaries?

The only “ITU” relevant to draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework is within “in-sITU”… Since there is no intersection, I fail once again to see the relevance of your comment, other than an unnecessary distraction.


Dear SFC chairs, draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework shepherd,

Greg Mirsky already shared this exact comment on “availability” on 3-4 different occasions in the WG, and then 3 independent times in this thread.

As much as I, as a document author, am quite sensitive and committed to responding to and addressing every question and comment, I am now at a complete loss as to how to make anything productive from these repetitious attempts.

I will be happy to be corrected if there is something I am missing.

Help?!

Humbly, and respectfully,

—
Carlos Pignataro, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."

2020/05/01 午後10:06、Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>のメール:

Dear Carlos, et al.,
thank you for confirming my understanding that the implied interpretation of the term availability in draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework is different from how it has been originally defined in ITU's G.826. Hence, the situation with the use of term availability in the draft, as I see it, appears as follows:

  *   ITU introduced and clearly defined the term availability as part of the set of parameters that characterize error performance. Availability is measurable and externally observable.
  *   draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework uses the term availability without definition, without an explanation of whether it is related to fault management or performance monitoring. The document does not provide information about how availability can be measured or calculated.

Thus, comparing how the term availability is being used in ITU documentation and draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework, I'm concerned that the draft is trying to share terminology across SDOs, but the understanding and interpretation (explicitly defined by ITU and implied in this draft) are different. I think that it would be beneficial to provide a clear and disciplined explanation of the interpretation of the term availability in draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework as well as provide examples of how it can be measured or calculated. That would help us avoid questions and misunderstandings with SDOs that use the term availability as ITU has defined it.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 8:12 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear Greg,

This thread would be to discuss the interpretation of availability in draft-ietf-sfc-oam-requirements.

Thank you for insisting, but, again, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/1r8s3iB139-ETZtGskpocWxC3Ao/. Instead of re-repeating, I’d kindly request you look at my previous responses.

Thank you also for bringing up an ITU definition, but I will pass :-)

Dear Tal,

From my perspective this topic was already closed two threads ago.

As document shepherd, I let you take it from here and work with Jim, Joel, and Martin as needed.

Please do let us know as shepherd if this needs further cycles from the authors.

Thanks,

Carlos.

2020/04/12 午後10:40、Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>のメール:

Dear Carlos,
thank you for your response. I think that it will make easier to follow the discussion if we split into several threads. Please let me know if you would prefer to keep the single thread.
This thread would be to discuss the interpretation of availability in draft-ietf-sfc-oam-requirements.

First, is the definition of the availability of constant bit-rate digital paths and connections as documented in ITU-T's G.826 (apologies for a lengthy quote):

  *   the definition uses Severely Errored Seconds (SES) (this definition for paths, the definition for connections is somewhat different): A one-second period which contains ≥30% errored blocks
or at least one defect. SES is a subset of ES (errored seconds).
  *   Now we can check the definitions of unavailable and available time:

A period of unavailable time begins at the onset of ten consecutive SES events. These ten seconds
are considered to be part of unavailable time. A new period of available time begins at the onset of
ten consecutive non-SES events. These ten seconds are considered to be part of the available time.

Is this definition close to the interpretation of the term "availability" in the draft? What constitutes the unavailability of an SF or an SFF?
I hope that with the ITU's definition of the term in front of us (I don't know of any other definition by an SDO) the interpretation of the term in this draft might be easier to formulate.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear Greg,

Let me first share a top-post comment, followed by inlined responses.

Scanning through your extensive set of review comments below, it seems to me that several of these are issues that you brought up in the past already at SFC, including during WGLC, and the SFC chairs declared consensus on their disposition. Many of the comments below are repetition to the previous extensive reviews you shared, and not additional or incremental comments. Repeating them again will not change the responses.

In this context, please see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/mDkO4jSkyxJ6ofup-YbBpIF5BEs/
Which was not responded to by you.

Please see inline with:
CMP: bold hopeful underlined green.


2020/04/09 午後6:04、Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>のメール:

Dear All,
I have reviewed the draft and wanted to share my comments on the draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework. Please find them organized into two sections - general and according to the text of the draft.
General:

  *   SFC OAM Architecture

CMP: No. This document does not use the phrase "SFC OAM Architecture”, nor it defines it.

The document includes three components in the SFC OAM architecture:

CMP: No. The document explains:


   For the purpose of defining
   the OAM framework, the service layer is broken up into three distinct
   components:

Service Function (SF), Service Function Chain (SFC), which is equivalent to the collection of all SFPs, and Classifier. Firstly, making SFC OAM a component of SFC OAM appears as an unfortunate selection of terminology that might be a source of confusion and misinterpretation (how one identifies the context of using "SFC OAM"?).

CMP: First, frankly I am unclear of what exactly you mean. It seems to me you are creating the confusion. "SFC OAM" is not a component. SFC is the component (S3.1) containing OAM Functions.

CMP: Second, Greg, you say "might be a source of confusion and misinterpretation”. However, to our knowledge, there has not been any confusion or misinterpretation.

CMP: Third, Please see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/fTsNNMAoHe6D6Vnrox6oQJJ5JO8/

The inclusion of an SF in the SFC OAM reference model is to provide the ability to verify "whether the SF is providing its intended service". Such a goal appears as a layer violation, in part of OAM, since the verification of the correctness of a service provided by the SFC is in the scope of Service OAM to which SFC OAM plays the role of transport OAM.

CMP: Apologies, I read this a few times and I am not sure what is meant. If you mean "why does the WG document include SF?", then this was discussed in your previous review.

In addition, the document notes that the fact of existing and deployed SFs is likely to leave SF OAM being implementation-specific. Combining these two aspects, the inclusion of the SF OAM component in the SFC OAM reference model is questionable as it doesn't seem to provide a good opportunity for the standardization given, on one hand, the lack drafts and, on the other hand, the growing number of deployed implementations. Figure 2 that illustrates SFC OAM components does not provide clarity to the relationships between SFC OAM and SF OAM components of the reference model as SF OAM is depicted both as the separate entity as well as part of SFC OAM component.


  *   The interpretation of 'availability' in SFC OAM

The document extensively discusses an SFC OAM characteristic, availability sections on SF and SFC availability, as well as references to the particular OAM tool as being capable to check the availability). Availability is well-defined for some technologies, e.g. constant bit-rate paths, while not being used at all in many other networking technologies, e.g., packet switching networks. The definition of the availability for the constant bit-rate paths can be found in G.826. The specification firstly defines the opposite, the state of unavailability. Also, note that both states of unavailability and availability are defined as being continuous in time, at least 10 seconds interval long. I couldn't find any definition of the availability in IETF documents I'm familiar with. The most comprehensive IETF document on OAM, RFC 7276, doesn't use the availability as one of the OAM states or performance metrics detected or measured by OAM methods analyzed in it. The draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework uses the term 'availability' in many places referring to the availability of SFC elements like SFF and SF without providing the definition. As a result, it is not clear what the availability of SFC OAM is and how it can be detected or measured. It appears that the term in this document is being used colloquially rather than as the technical terminology. Such a manner of using terminology does affect the technical accuracy of the document and very likely leave a reader familiar with the existing definitions of the term in a state of confusion.

CMP: Greg, please see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/1r8s3iB139-ETZtGskpocWxC3Ao/. That email from the chairs went unanswered.


Going through the text:

  *   section 3.1.1 in the last paragraph states:

   This framework document provides a RECOMMENDED framework where a
   generalized approach is taken to verify that a SF is sufficiently
   available (i.e., an adequate granularity to provide a basic SF
   service).
That "RECOMMENDED framework" seems like a deviation from the scope of the document defined in the Abstract and Document Scope:
   The focus of this document is to provide an architectural framework
   for SFC OAM, particularly focused on the aspect of the Operations
   component within OAM.


CMP: Good point, Martin noted the same issue and it is addressed in a forthcoming revision.

  *   the definition of connectivity in Section 4.1 appears as using circular logic by defining itself through connectivity verification whereas it is a composition of verifying that packets that belong to the monitored flow are reaching the egress node and only packets that belong to that flow are received by the egress (the case when a packet that belongs to a different flow is detected constitutes miscommunication defect and may lead to miscommunication state).

CMP: Apologies it is hard for me to follow. However, combining https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/mDkO4jSkyxJ6ofup-YbBpIF5BEs/ with https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/fTsNNMAoHe6D6Vnrox6oQJJ5JO8/, please provide suggested text for an improved definition.


  *   also in Section 4.1, the path MTU discovery and monitoring, packet re-ordering and/or corruption, arbitrary path monitoring are misattributed to connectivity verification function

CMP: Same as above.

  *   notification to other application (Section 4.2) is not part of OAM and is implementation-specific

CMP: I assume this refers to:


   o  Notifying the detected failures to other OAM functions or
      applications to take appropriate action.

CMP: If so, do you suggest that OAM detects failures but notifies noone?

  *   'PM' in PM OAM is usually expanded as 'Performance Monitoring', sometimes 'Performance Measurement". Used in the document "Performance Management" is extremely unusual, if not misleading.

CMP: We can change "Performance Management" to "Performance Measurement".

  *   In Section 4.4 delay variance (variation)/jitter is listed as a measurable performance metric even though it can be only calculated using a set of delay measurements. On the other hand, most performance monitoring active OAM protocols are well-equipped to detect packet re-ordering, unwarranted packet duplication.

CMP: I am sorry I do not follow what you are asking here. What would you like to see?

  *   Further in Section 4, jitter, i.e. delay variation is being mentioned as a measurable performance metric. That is not the case. Latency, i.e. delay, is a measurable metric but jitter (delay variation) can only be calculated.

CMP: The text says "could also be calculated"


  *   Table 3 in Section 5.1 raises several questions:
     *   Is listing E-OAM is to suggest that an overlay network supporting SFC NSH can be instantiated directly over the Ethernet network? Can you illustrate that with an example?

CMP: See... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8300#section-10.1

     *   It appears that some of the information presented in Table 3 contradicts other material in the draft, for example, Section 6.4.1. The section indicates that ICMP may be used as a connectivity verification tool for both SF and SFC OAM.

CMP: I do not see a contradiction. Do you have specifics?

  *   In Section 6.4.1 ICMP is positioned as a suitable mechanism to "test the network reachability" (that seems like a new OAM function being introduced in the section). Because SFC can be realized over a number of combinations of underlay and overlay technologies, I believe, an example (or a couple of examples would be much better) demonstrating the encapsulation of an ICMP message and, particularly, triggering ICMP Echo Reply on the proper element of the SFP. I have to admit, I couldn't imagine the encapsulation that would make ICMP-over-SFC work as IP Ping/traceroute.

CMP: What exactly are you requesting or is the concern? The section describes already what you ask.

  *   Section 6.4.2 makes the positioning statement for BFD and S-BFD as follows:

BFD or S-BFD could be leveraged to perform continuity function for SF or SFC.
The statement, in regard to BFD, contradicts with RFC 5880 which explains the goal of BFD as follows:
   ... a protocol intended to detect faults in the
   bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including
   interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding
   engines themselves ...
And the text in the second paragraph on Section 6.4.2 appears to describe a way of using S-BFD, not of BFD.

CMP: It describes BFD, which can be used to verify continuity in connectivity.

  *   Section 6.4.3 suggests that iOAM could be used "perform SF availability and SFC availability or performance measurement". I agree with that statement in part of performance measurement but the references to the "SF availability and SFC availability", without the definition of availability in the context of SFC OAM, appear as not sufficiently justified.

CMP: Greg, please see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/1r8s3iB139-ETZtGskpocWxC3Ao/. That email from the chairs went unanswered.

  *   Section 6.4.4 makes a reference to an individual draft that was last updated some four and a half years ago. It appears that such a long time is an indication of a lack of interest to work on the proposed solution by the authors or anyone else..

CMP: Greg... this was also covered multiple times already, and re-re-repeating will not change the response.

CMP: First, Internet-Drafts are "work in progress.”

CMP: Second, please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-sfc-trace-03#section-6
CMP: Running code seems more relevant than a non-implemented refreshed-but-not-updated I-D...


  *   Section 7 and, in particular, Table 4 seems as not closely relevant to the subject or OAM. Especially since the title of Table 4 is not reflecting the content of the table itself. RFC 6291 recommends using Mgmt acronym for Management and O&M - for OAM and Management. Acronym OAM is recommended to be expanded and used in the IETF document solely for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.


CMP: This was again already covered, and in fact updated and moved based on your previous comments.

Summarizing my comments, I find so many problematic parts in the text that I've to question the usefulness of the requirement in the Introduction
   SFC OAM solution documents should refer to this document to indicate
   the SFC OAM component and the functionality they target.
and the value of publishing this document in its current form.


CMP: Greg, you wrote the same thing on WG Last-call, and the chairs responded to that perspective.

CMP: It was a bit hard for me to parse some of you comments. As it was requested before by the SFC chairs, if you have comments accompany them by textual suggestions.

CMP: Best,

CMP: Carlos.

Regards,
Greg


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:47 AM
Subject: [sfc] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11.txt> (Service Function Chaining (SFC) Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Framework) to Informational RFC
To: IETF-Announce <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>



The IESG has received a request from the Service Function Chaining WG (sfc)
to consider the following document: - 'Service Function Chaining (SFC)
Operations, Administration and
   Maintenance (OAM) Framework'
  <draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11.txt> 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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> mailing lists by 2020-04-09. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   This document provides a reference framework for Operations,
   Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Service Function Chaining
   (SFC).





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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3440/
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3121/






_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
--
last-call mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call