Re: [sfc] WG Last Call draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-06

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for your comments, Greg.

Please see inline.

On Jul 11, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Dear Jim, Joel, et al.
I'd like to share my comments and questions to Section 5 Gap Analysis:

  *   in Table 3 raises some questions:
     *   E-OAM is  not expanded, nor referenced in the rest of the document
     *   MPLS_PM is  not expanded, nor referenced in the rest of the document
     *   IPPM is expanded in Terminology but it is not clear how IP Performance Metrics are relevant to Performance Monitoring OAM solutions
     *   NVo3 OAM - it is not clear what is included in it, especially since there are no WG documents in NVO3 WG on OAM and the discussion of encapsulation of an active OAM in Geneve is about to begin
     *   the title on the next page refers to Table 4: OAM Tool GAP Analysis (contd.)
     *   one row assigned for SFC. Here, I think, maybe some mixed terminology. In Introduction SFC is for Service Function Chaining while in Terminology it is expanded as Service Function Chain. I recommend reassigning the row to SFP.
     *   Configuration (the first column) in Table 4 is usually not considered as part of OAM. And neither Orchestration or Topology (discovery). I recommend removing that portion of the table from the document altogether.
     *   also, Why the same readily available tools that provide Topology (discovery) and Notifications for overlay and underlay networks cannot be used for SF and SFC/SFP?

Great points on the terminology ad acronym mis-uses. These should be fixed. From expanding PM and fixing SFC’s expansion to explaining for IPPM is the protocols not the metrics.

It appears that the conclusion expressed in section 5.2 contradicts the discussion in some of the further sections, for example, sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2.
Section 5.3 Required OAM Functions refers to O&M, not OAM functions in the following:
   Configuration, orchestration and manageability of SF and SFC could be
   performed using CLI, NETCONF, etc.
Since the scope of the document includes only SFC OAM, not O&M (RFC 6291<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6291> explains the variances of OAM soup in great details), I recommend removing the sentence.


On configuration, I am OK removing the table column and sentence. I’m also OK moving that paragraph (and the one that follows) to a Manageability Considerations section.

Does the WG have a preference?

Thanks,

Carlos.

Regards,
Greg


On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:37 AM James Guichard <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Dear WG:



This message starts a new two week WG Last Call on advancing https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce47e5eb13f224f18c46408d6e378b2f7%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636946504868870205&sdata=lkKvAgmKik7lkqGANQpnIvBRdbjKAqYtzTUdTfB9f3Y%3D&reserved=0> for publication as an Informational RFC.



Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This last call will end on 11th June 2019.



Thanks!



Jim & Joel




_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc