Re: [OPSAWG] extend the call//RE: WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 5, 2020, at 3:04 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I've just (re)read this, and have some concerns -- I found it somewhat
> hard to dig into the actual technical "meat" of the document
> (channeling Randy Bush "Where's the protein?") - it feels like it
> describes a bunch of benefits and features of a solution, but without
> actually describing the solution itself.

  The document appears to be largely philosophic, not practical.  At no point does the document describe how anyone can implement anything.

  From the abstract:

   iFIT
   provides several essential components that can be assembled to
   achieve a complete and efficient solution for on-path telemetry.

  The components described in the document cannot be described as "complete", or "efficient", or a "solution".

> The Abstract says that in the
> document "a high-level framework, In-situ Flow Information Telemetry
> (iFIT), is outlined.", but I couldn't really find it. Section 2 ("iFIT
> Framework Overview") is so very level that it doesn't really seem to
> say much at all.

  The abstract is surprisingly long, while saying surprisingly little.

> This, and the general tone of the document, feels like a marketing
> driven exercise - the document describes a bunch of features and
> benefits of a solution, but without the detail needed to implement it.

  It is impossible to implement anything based on this document.

  As an example of odd text:

   In addition to efficient export data encoding (e.g., IPFIX [RFC7011]
   or protobuf [1]), iFIT nodes have several other ways to reduce the
   export data by taking advantage of network device's capability and
   programmability.

  That statement is simply content-free.  It might as well say "nodes are capable of communicating via a variety of communications methods".

  To me, the document reads largely likely a patent application, but with no supporting details.  It claims the widest possible applicability for the "solution".  While at the same time giving next to no information about the solution.

  IMHO the WG should ignore this document entirely.

  Alan DeKok.