[sfc] Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-12: (with COMMENT)

Jim Guichard via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 04 May 2023 22:27 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Guichard via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh@ietf.org, sfc-chairs@ietf.org, sfc@ietf.org, gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com, gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Jim Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
Message-ID: <168323926078.50289.8527469803817626823@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 15:27:40 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/8KUIoFrAbnbwemr2j-SBBw-QfyE>
Subject: [sfc] Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-12: (with COMMENT)

Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


General comment. There are several typos or grammatical errors in the document.
Suggest running an error checker against the document.

Section 1: "In-situ OAM (IOAM)" in the first sentence does not need to be
expanded as the authors already did so in the abstract.

Section 1: "Service Function Chaining (SFC) [RFC7665]" should read "Service
Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture [RFC7665]".

Section 3: 6th sentence use of "service path" should probably be changed to the
correct terminology used by the SFC architecture which is Service Function Path
(SFP). Further, the next sentence should be folded into the 6th sentence as a
single sentence to make it more readable.

Section 3: "See [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment] for a discussion of deployment
related aspects of IOAM-Data-fields.". This reference should be changed to
[RFC9378].

Section 3: "[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]". This reference should be changed to
[RFC9322].

Several outdated references need to be updated:

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
     draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet-01

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment has been published
     as RFC 9378

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export has been
     published as RFC 9326

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags has been published as RFC
     9322

[sfc] Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-s… Jim Guichard via Datatracker