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

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 6, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Haoyu Song <[e-mail]> wrote:
> [HS] Indeed I tried to describe some practical problems on applying a specific set of techniques and then to propose an architecture (we call it a framework). A solution can be based on it, but itself cannot be used as a solution directly. 

  Then this document describes an architecture, not a solution.  Which is fine.  There are many IETF architecture documents.  But they are rather less enthusiastic.

> [HS] What I want to express here is that, as far as I know, no other OAM technique provides the same capability as this new type of technique such as IOAM. I can change the word if it sounds improper. 

  Then say "no existing technology solves this problem".  That is a statement of fact.  Engineering is done on facts, not on enthusiasm,

> [HS] I'm fully aware of the existence of ForCES, I just didn't see its wide application in real products.

  Irrelevant.  The programmable data plane was being standardized going back to 2000.  So this document is entirely wrong when it says "with the advent of the programmable data plane".

  What would be factual would be to say "existing technologies do not fix this problem".

> [HS] Fair enough. I would use simple words instead. After reading the document, I hope the reader can recognize the issues and agree that our proposed framework or architecture makes sense for practical deployments, and start to think about how to fill the standard gaps to make it happen. I think this is the core value of this draft.  

  I reiterate my objection that this draft says essentially nothing.  And as such, does not belong in the IETF.

  Alan DeKok.