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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On May 17, 2020 at 12:07:47 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:


Joel:

Hi!


> Alvaro, Murray no longer has a Discuss. So I am not sure what your
> stance is.

I've seen the proposed text and resolution to the DISCUSS.   I can
live with the resolution.


> And the particular change the authors have proposed seems to me to go
> too far, apparently promising that SFC OAM will validity SF
> functionality. That is out of scope for the document.
>
> Can you please clarify whether you feel there is still a discuss level
> issue here? And if you can live without this change?

In reading your other comments, I see your concern of setting
expectations beyond what the WG, or even the RTG Area, would have
expertise on.  Personally, I think there's a difference between what
an informational framework document may say and the expected product
of the WG.  IOW, a mention in the document shouldn't immediately
translate into a work item.


Because the document mentions the SF's ability to provide the service
as important, then I still think that not mentioning that as a gap
means that the document is incomplete.  I am not looking for a
solution in this document, and Murray's proposed text works for me --
maybe something could be added to it to explain why:

Current>
   The task of evaluating the true availability of a Service Function is a
   complex activity, currently having no simple, unified solution.  There is
   currently no standard means of doing so, and accordingly none is proposed
   here.

Add (Suggestion)>

   ...  Any such mechanism would be far from a typical OAM function, so it is
   not explored as part of the analysis in Sections 4 and 5.


Just a suggestion -- I am ok either way.


Thanks!!

Alvaro.