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

Dear Jim, Joel, Editors, and All,
-010 version was published recently. I was quite surprised to find that the
discussion of O&M in SFC, i.e., SFC manageability, is now in its own
section. To confuse things even more, Editors kept the original title of
the table that lists various management tools: Table 4: OAM Tool GAP
Analysis. That raises several questions:

   - How O&M tools related to the scope of the document on OAM?
   - Are Editors committed to resolving comments or hope that a commentator
   would not check back?

I'm asking that last question because none of my comments from this note
has been addressed by the recent update.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:24 AM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:

> Thank you for your comments, Greg.
>
> Please see inline.
>
> On Jul 11, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> Great points on the terminology ad acronym mis-uses. These should be
> fixed. From expanding PM and fixing SFC’s expansion to explaining for IPPM
> is the protocols not the metrics.
>
> 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.
>
>
> On configuration, I am OK removing the table column and sentence. I’m also
> OK moving that paragraph (and the one that follows) to a Manageability
> Considerations section.
>
> Does the WG have a preference?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carlos.
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
>
>