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

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please address the issues in the (detailed!) Tsvarea review, in particular the
bits from section 4 that incorrectly describe the work coming out of IPPM.

Additional nits:

Sec 3.1.1: s/extendibility/extensibility

Sec 3.1.2: there are also “hybrid” methods like IOAM that do not fit the active
and passive definitions neatly.

4.1 s/packet to be of variable length packet size/packet to be of variable
length

4.1 you are probably not trying to “verify” packet reordering and corruption! I
suggest “detect” instead.

6.3 s/is intended to/is intended

6.3 s/in NSH header/in the NSH header

6.4.1 s/describes/describe

6.4.1 s/incrementing the ttl/incrementing ttl

6.4.3 s/using NSH header/using the NSH header

8. s/Any security consideration/Any security considerations

8. Missing period at end of second paragraph

8. s/mechanism/mechanisms