Re: [sfc] WG Last Call draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-06

Dear Jim, Joel, et al.
I'd like to share my comments and questions to Section 5 Gap Analysis:

   - in Table 3 raises some questions:
      - E-OAM is  not expanded, nor referenced in the rest of the document
      - MPLS_PM is  not expanded, nor referenced in the rest of the document
      - IPPM is expanded in Terminology but it is not clear how IP
      Performance Metrics are relevant to Performance Monitoring OAM solutions
      - NVo3 OAM - it is not clear what is included in it, especially since
      there are no WG documents in NVO3 WG on OAM and the discussion of
      encapsulation of an active OAM in Geneve is about to begin
      - the title on the next page refers to Table 4: OAM Tool GAP Analysis
      (contd.)
      - one row assigned for SFC. Here, I think, maybe some mixed
      terminology. In Introduction SFC is for Service Function
Chaining while in
      Terminology it is expanded as Service Function Chain. I recommend
      reassigning the row to SFP.
      - Configuration (the first column) in Table 4 is usually not
      considered as part of OAM. And neither Orchestration or Topology
      (discovery). I recommend removing that portion of the table from the
      document altogether.
      - also, Why the same readily available tools that provide Topology
      (discovery) and Notifications for overlay and underlay networks cannot be
      used for SF and SFC/SFP?

It appears that the conclusion expressed in section 5.2 contradicts the
discussion in some of the further sections, for example, sections 6.4.1 and
6.4.2.
Section 5.3 Required OAM Functions refers to O&M, not OAM functions in the
following:

   Configuration, orchestration and manageability of SF and SFC could be
   performed using CLI, NETCONF, etc.

Since the scope of the document includes only SFC OAM, not O&M (RFC 6291
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6291> explains the variances of OAM soup in
great details), I recommend removing the sentence.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:37 AM James Guichard <
james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> wrote:

> Dear WG:
>
>
>
> This message starts a new two week WG Last Call on advancing
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework/
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce47e5eb13f224f18c46408d6e378b2f7%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636946504868870205&sdata=lkKvAgmKik7lkqGANQpnIvBRdbjKAqYtzTUdTfB9f3Y%3D&reserved=0>
> for publication as an Informational RFC.
>
>
>
> Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this
> document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can
> be sent to the authors.  This last call will end on 11th June 2019.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Jim & Joel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>