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

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

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.