Re: [sfc] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10

["Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tal,

Thank you for the comments. We will address the same and will submit a new version.

Regards,
Nagendra

From: sfc <[e-mail]> on behalf of Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, September 2, 2019 at 1:14 AM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Service Function Chaining IETF list <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [sfc] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10

Hi,

I am the assigned shepherd of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10.
I believe the document is almost ready for publication.
I have a few (mostly editorial) comments, as follows.
It would be great if the authors could post a new version that addresses these comments, and then we can proceed with the publication process.

  *   RFC 7498 is an informative reference, but the introduction says that the reader is expected to be familiar with it. I suggest to change either one or the other.
  *   Is there a reason why RFC 8459 is a normative reference? I suggest to make it informative.
  *   Regarding IOAM (Section 6.4.3) - the section describes the proof-of-transit draft, but should also mention
  *   draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh.
  *   Section 1 (Introduction) lists the content in the rest of the sections, but does not mention Section 6, which suggests candidate tools.
  *   "with the same" ==> "this terminology"
  *   "The link layer, which is dependent upon the physical technology used." ==> "The link layer, which is tightly coupled with the physical technology used."
  *   "depicts a sample example" ==> "depicts an example"
  *   In Tables 3 and 4, it is not clear why some of the columns are separated by "|", and some are separated by "+".
  *   "Tables 4" ==> "Table 4"
  *   "for fast failure detection" - I suggest to remove the word fast, as BFD is not necessarily fast.
  *   Section 6..4 says that "This section describes the applicability of some of the available toolsets in the service layer.", however, section "6.4.4 SFC Traceroute" describes a tool that was defined in an expired individual submission. I suggest to either remove section 6.4.4., or to explicitly mention that this draft has expired, and that a new tool can be defined along the lines of this proposal.
  *   Section 3 describes three OAM components (SF, SFC, Classifier), but then Section 5 and Section 7 (Table 3, Table 4) do not refer to these three components, but to Underlay, Overlay, SF and SFC. Please be consistent, so that Section 5-7 refer to the same components that were defined in Section 3.
  *   Moreover, in Section 3, for each of the first two components (SF and SFC) there is a discussion about availability and performance measurement. However, for the third component (Classifier), there is no explicit discussion about availability and performance measurement. I suggest to add this missing discussion (even if these functions are not required, it is still important to mention this).
Cheers,
Tal.