[sfc] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

I support Murray's DISCUSS.

I appreciate the fact that "More specifics on the mechanism to characterize
SF-specific OAM to validate the service offering are outside the scope of this
document." (§3.1.1)

The issue I want to point out, which I believe is a significant omission in
this document, is the lack of mention in §4 and §5 of the validation of the
service offering as an SFC OAM function or in the gap analysis.  IOW, the
availability of the SF from the point of view of its ability to provide the
service is pointed out as important in §3.1.1, but there is no further
consideration later in the document.

[I believe that this issue borders on a DISCUSS -- and while I would really
like to see further consideration in the text, I decided to trust that the
authors and the responsible AD will take care of it.]