Re: [sfc] Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13

["Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Joel. Per what I mentioned below, let's be clear that SF performance is out of scope for the doc.
And I think this was Alvaro's point as well.

Cheers, Frank

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Mittwoch, 20. Mai 2020 19:21
> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]>; Nagendra Kumar Nainar
> (naikumar) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13
> 
> Frank, regarding your comment about SF performance, I thought the document
> was pretty clear that we consider that out of scope (c.f. the discussions with the
> various ADs.)
> 
> If you can see a place to add text, please propose text.
> 
> Thank you,
> Joel
> 
> On 5/20/2020 1:10 PM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote:
> > Hi Nagendra,
> >
> > Thanks for the detailed reply. Please see inline (..FB).
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Samstag, 16. Mai 2020 16:16
> >> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: Tsvart telechat review of
> >> draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13
> >>
> >> Hi Frank,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the review. Please see inline for the response..
> >>
> >>
> >>      Reviewer: Frank Brockners
> >>      Review result: Ready with Nits
> >>
> >>      This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review
> team's
> >>      ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were
> written
> >>      primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
> document's
> >>      authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and
> >> also to the IETF
> >>      discussion list for information.
> >>
> >>      When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> >>      review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> >>      [e-mail] if you reply to or forward this review.
> >>
> >>      This document provides a reference framework for OAM for SFC.
> >>
> >>      Comments:
> >>
> >>      Section 3.1.1 SF availability: The text makes explicit reference to multiple
> >>      instances of a SF. Consequently, it should be defined how availability of a
> SF
> >>      is computed/determined in case multiple instances are deployed.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> This is already clarified in the section as below:
> >>
> >> "For cases where
> >>     multiple instances of an SF are used to realize a given SF for the
> >>     purpose of load sharing, SF availability can be performed by checking
> >>     the availability of any one of those instances, or the availability
> >>     check may be targeted at a specific instance."
> >>
> >> This further
> >>      leads to the question, whether availability is always a "binary" state
> >>      (available / not-available), or could a SF be e.g. 99% available?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>The availability is measured as binary state. I am not sure
> >> what is 99% available. If it means getting 99 responses for 100
> >> probes sent, I think it falls under packet loss category which in turn is
> performance measurement.
> >
> > ...FB: Thanks. Though I'm still not entirely following. If availability is binary and
> I put the statements above together, what would be the availability of the
> following setup: There is an SF that is made up of 100 instances. 99 of these
> instances are powered down entirely. And the 1 instance that is "up" is
> alternating between servicing requests for 10min followed by not servicing
> requests for 10min. Would the SF be considered "available"?
> >
> >>
> >> Section 3.1.2
> >>      SF performance: What is the impact of a "multiple instance SF
> >> deployment" on SF
> >>      performance measurement?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>I think we covered this in SF availability but not here.
> >> Does the below updated text look better?
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >> On the one hand, the performance of any specific SF can be quantified
> >>     by measuring the loss and delay metrics of the traffic from SFF to
> >>     the respective SF, while on the other hand, the performance can be
> >>     measured by leveraging the loss and delay metrics from the respective
> >>     SFs.  The latter requires SF involvement to perform the measurement
> >>     while the former does not.
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >> On the one hand, the performance of any specific SF can be quantified
> >>     by measuring the loss and delay metrics of the traffic from SFF to
> >>     the respective SF, while on the other hand, the performance can be
> >>     measured by leveraging the loss and delay metrics from the respective
> >>     SFs.  The latter requires SF involvement to perform the measurement
> >>     while the former does not. For cases where
> >>     multiple instances of an SF are used to realize a given SF for the
> >>     purpose of load sharing, SF performance can be quantified by measuring
> >>     the metrics for any one instance of SF or by measuring the metrics for
> >>     a specific instance.
> >>
> >> The section only talks about loss and delay as
> >>      performance criteria. It would be good to state that other
> >> performance criteria
> >>      (e.g. specific to the SF, throughput, etc.) exist.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> We can add the below to Section 3.1.2:
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >> "The metrics measured to quantify the performance of the SF component
> >> is not just limited to loss and delay. Other metrics such as
> >> throughout also exist and the choice of metrics for performance
> >> measurement is outside the scope of this document."
> >>
> >> Section 3.2.1 SFC
> >>      availability: The current definition is very focused on connectivity
> >>      verification, i.e. it tries to answer the question: "Does my SFC transport
> >>      packets?". IMHO we should also ask the question "Does my SFC process
> the
> >>      packets correctly?" - because if packets are not processed per the SFC
> >>      definition, we might not call the SFC available.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> I think this is already handled by SF availability. The
> >> end-to-end SFC availability is verified by steering the OAM packet
> >> over the ordered set of SFs within the SFC. This is more like daisy
> >> chaining the availability of SFs within the SFC to determine
> >> end-to-end SFC availability. If the derived solution verifies the SF
> >> availability not just based on the uptime but based on the service
> >> treatment, it also answers the question "Does my SFC process the packets
> correctly". Let us know if there is any further clarity required.
> >>
> >> While 3.2.2 states that "any
> >>      SFC-aware network device should have the ability to make performance
> >>      measurements" a similar statement isn't found in 3.2.1. IMHO the ability
> for
> >>      availability checks is probably a prerequisite for performance
> measurement.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> The ability to perform end-to-end or partial SFC
> >> availability verification is already mentioned in section 3.2.1 as below:
> >>
> >> " In order to perform service connectivity verification of an SFC/SFP,
> >>     the OAM functions could be initiated from any SFC-aware network
> >>     devices of an SFC-enabled domain for end-to-end paths, or partial
> >>     paths terminating on a specific SF, within the SFC/SFP"
> >>
> >> Please let us know if you have any suggestion to improve if there is
> >> a lack of clarity.
> >>
> >>      Section 3.2.2 SFC performance measurement: The section only
> >> mentions the need
> >>      for performance measurement. It misses the definition of what
> >> SFC performance
> >>      measurement is.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>
> >
> > ...FB: Thanks for the suggested updates, which would definitively improve the
> text. One problem about SFC performance remains though IMHO.
> > All the text so far is focused on the connectivity within a SFC - not the service
> itself. I.e. If you'd consider a "laundry service" - we focus a lot on how long it
> takes to get the clothes shipped to and from the washing machine, but we don't
> focus on how well the washing machine washes the clothes.
> > IMHO we should either expand on the performance of the SFC and SF wrt/ the
> service (especially given that you define a service layer in section 2) - or clearly
> state that the framework would just focus on connectivity between SFs.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Section 3.3. Classifier component: The section mentions the
> >>      need for the ability to perform performance measurement of the classifier
> >>      component. What is performance measurement of the classifier? What
> does
> >>      performance measurement of the classifier component comprise?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>We can add the below text:
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >> Any SFC-aware network device should have the ability to perform
> >>     performance measurement of the classifier component for each SFC.
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >> Any SFC-aware network device should have the ability to perform
> >>     performance measurement of the classifier component for each SFC.
> >>      The performance can be quantified by measuring the performance
> >> metrics of the
> >>       traffic from the classifier for each SFC/SFP.
> >>
> >> Section 3.4. /
> >>      3.5. Availability/PM of the underlay and overlay network: It would be good
> to
> >>      add a sentence that states that the mechanisms for availability/PM which
> are
> >>      offered by the technologies used by the overlay/underlay are
> >> used, rather than
> >>      new methods specifically for SFC would be defined.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>Yes, that makes sense. Please check the below text:
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >> Any SFC-aware network device may have the ability to perform
> >>     availability check or performance measurement of the overlay network.
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >> Any SFC-aware network device may have the ability to perform
> >>     availability check or performance measurement of the overlay network.
> Any
> >>     existing OAM tools and techniques can be leveraged for this purpose.
> >>
> >> Section 4. SFC OAM
> >>      Functions: It would be good, if examples in section 4 could also include
> more
> >>      "recent" methods such as OWAMP/TWAMP (RFC4656, RFC 5357).
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >> Delay within an SFC could be measured based on the time it takes for
> >>     a packet to traverse the SFC from the ingress SFC node to the egress
> >>     SFF.  As SFCs are unidirectional in nature, measurement of one-way
> >>     delay [RFC7679] is important.  In order to measure one-way delay,
> >>     time synchronization MUST be supported by means such as NTP, PTP,
> >>     GPS, etc.
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >> Delay within an SFC could be measured based on the time it takes for
> >>     a packet to traverse the SFC from the ingress SFC node to the egress
> >>     SFF.  Measurement protocols such as One-way Active Measurement
> >>      Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656], Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
> >>     (TWAMP) [RFC5357] can be used to measure the characteristics. As
> >>     SFCs are unidirectional in nature, measurement of one-way
> >>     delay [RFC7679] is important.  In order to measure one-way delay,
> >>     time synchronization MUST be supported by means such as NTP,
> >> Precision Time Protocol (PTP),
> >>     GPS, etc.
> >>
> >> Section 4.4.
> >>      Performance Measurement: Focus is entirely on the PM of the
> connectivity,
> >>      rather than on the SF. How about covering PM for the SF as well?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> I am not sure I understand what is missing. Do you have
> >> any suggestion for the text improvement?.
> >
> > ...FB: See above. This would be about adding a capability to assess how well
> the washing machine washes my laundry.
> >
> >>
> >> Section 5.1
> >>      OAM Tool Gap Analysis:
> >>       - Not sure what "NVo3 OAM" refers to. Could that be explained
> >> below the table
> >>       and in section 1.2.1?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Combining this with other below queries as they appears to
> >> be related.
> >>
> >> - E-OAM needs to be detailed. Is seems that CFM
> >>       (802.1ag) and not 802.3ah is refered to here.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Per my understanding, 802.ah is 1-hop while 802.3ag can be
> >> more than 1 hop and both uses Ethernet frames. So I think both are
> applicable here.
> >> My response regarding E-OAM details in this section is combined below.
> >
> > ...FB: Maybe I missed it - but I don't see text that refers to CFM or EFM OAM.
> Where is this covered? IMHO we would need references to IEEE standards to
> avoid confusion.
> >
> >>
> >> - "Trace" in the "Trace" column
> >>       need to be extended on. Is this traceroute? Paris-Traceroute?
> >> IOAM- Loopback?
> >>
> >>       IPPM needs to be detailed, because IPPM is not a tool as such
> >> but an IETF WG.
> >>       Does this refer to OWAMP/TWAMP/etc. as defined by IPPM?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Combining the above queries.
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >> There are various OAM tool sets available to perform OAM functions
> >>     within various layers.  These OAM functions may be used to validate
> >>     some of the underlay and overlay networks.  Tools like ping and trace
> >>     are in existence to perform connectivity check and tracing of
> >>     intermediate hops in a network.  These tools support different
> >>     network types like IP, MPLS, TRILL, etc.  There is also an effort to
> >>     extend the tool set to provide connectivity and continuity checks
> >>     within overlay networks.  BFD is another tool which helps in
> >>     detecting data forwarding failures.  Table 3 below is not
> >> exhaustive
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >> There are various OAM tool sets available to perform OAM functions
> >>     within various layers.  These OAM functions may be used to validate
> >>     some of the underlay and overlay networks.  Tools like ping and trace
> >>     are used to perform connectivity check and tracing of
> >>     intermediate hops in a network.  These tools are already available for
> >>     different types of networks such as IP, MPLS, TRILL, etc.
> >>
> >> E-OAM offers OAM mechanisms such as an Ethernet continuity check for
> >> Ethernet links. There is an effort around NVO3 OAM to provide
> >> connectivity and continuity checks for networks that use NVO3.  BFD
> >> is used for the detection of data plane forwarding failures.
> >
> > ...FB: Check whether NVO3 WG will indeed deliver a solution and "NVO3 OAM"
> indeed existis. If in doubt, it might be better to avoid forward looking
> references. Per my note above, it would be good to explicitly refer to IEEE
> standards as opposed to introducing a new term like "E-OAM".
> >
> >>
> >> The IPPM framework [RFC 2330] offers tools such as OWAMP [RFC4656]
> >> and TWAMP [RFC5357] (collectively referred as IPPM in this section)
> >> to measure various performance metrics. MPLS Packet Loss Measurement
> >> (LM) and Packet Delay Measurement (DM) (collectively referred as
> >> MPLS_PM in this section) [RFC6374] offers the ability to measure
> performance metrics in MPLS network.
> >>
> >> Table 3 below is not exhaustive.
> >>
> >> Section 6.4.3 IOAM:
> >>      - The section states that IOAM "may be used to perform various SFC OAM
> >>      functions as well". It would be good to expand on this statement: E.g.
> IOAM
> >>      Trace-Option Type could be leveraged for SFC tracing. IOAM
> >> Direct-Export Option
> >>      Type could be leveraged. - How would we deal with the IOAM Active Flag
> >>      (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-01) when used with SFC OAM?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> The intention of the section is to highlight the
> >> applicability of different OAM toolsets for OAM functions at service
> >> layer. I am not sure if we really should try explaining all the
> >> possible options within each tool. But I agree that it is worth
> >> clarifying the availability of IOAM options for tracing. think we can
> >> clarify that different IOAM Option-Types are available for OAM functions
> such as SFC tracing. Can you check if the below looks ok?
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >> [I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh] defines how In-Situ OAM data fields are
> >>     transported using NSH header.  [I-D.ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit]
> >>     defines a mechanism to perform proof of transit to securely verify if
> >>     a packet traversed the relevant SFP or SFC.  While the mechanism is
> >>     defined inband (i.e., it will be included in data packets), it may be
> >>     used to perform various SFC OAM functions as well.
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >> [I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh] defines how In-Situ OAM data fields are
> >>     transported using NSH header.  [I-D.ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit]
> >>     defines a mechanism to perform proof of transit to securely verify if
> >>     a packet traversed the relevant SFP or SFC.  While the mechanism is
> >>     defined inband (i.e., it will be included in data packets), IOAM Option-Types
> >>    such as IOAM Trace Option-Types can also be used to perform other
> >> SFC OAM function
> >>    such as SFC tracing.
> >>
> >> - The text states
> >>      "In-Situ OAM could be used with O bit set": Why would IOAM be used with
> the
> >>      overflow bit set for SFC OAM? For details on IOAM's O-bit, see section
> 4.4.1 in
> >>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-09.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> The O bit referred here is not the O bit in IOAM but the
> >> one in NSH/Overlay header. To avoid any confusion, this can be updated as
> below:
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >> In-Situ OAM could be used with O bit set to perform SF availability
> >>     and SFC availability or performance measurement.
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >> In-Situ OAM could be used with O bit in the overlay header set, to
> >> perform SF availability
> >>     and SFC availability or performance measurement.
> >
> > ... FB: Ah, ok. Given that this section is about IOAM and not NSH, I'd rather
> explicitly refer to NSH here. E.g. If SFC is realized using NSH, then the O-bit in the
> NSH header could be used to indicated OAM traffic. You could refer to
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-03#section-4.2 explicitly.
> >
> >>
> >> Section 6.4.4 SFC
> >>      Traceroute: - This section refers to an expired draft (even calling out the
> >>      fact that the draft has exipred), but also mentions that functionality is
> >>      available and implemented in OpenDaylight. Consider removing the
> >> references to
> >>      the expired draft and rather add references to OpenDaylight
> >> documents. - IOAM
> >>      Loopback (see draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-01) could apply SFC
> >> Traceroute as well.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>Ok. Let me check if I can find some reference for ODL.
> >>
> >>      Detailed set of nits that I encountered while reading through
> >> the document ([x]
> >>      references line number x) – hope that they are helpful in further improving
> the
> >>      doc:
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Yes of course (.
> >>
> >>      [global] s/an SF/a SF/ -- and similarly SFC/SFF
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>Other RFCs uses "an SF/SFF". So the draft is updated
> >> accordingly. If your suggestion is to substitute "a SF" to "an SF",  it is done (.
> >>
> >>      [176] "OAM Controller" not defined
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>We can change it as below:
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >> OAM controllers are assumed to be within the same administrative
> >>     domain as the target SFC enabled domain.
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >> OAM controllers are SFC-aware network devices that are capable of
> >> generating OAM packets. They are assumed to be within the same
> >> administrative domain as the target SFC enabled domain.
> >>
> >>      [202] Why just Virtual Machines and no containers? Suggest to make
> things
> >>      generic and talk about virtual and physical entities.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> We changed this as virtual entities.
> >>
> >>            This comment applies throughout the document.
> >>      [216] Ethernet OAM: Add reference. Do you refer to physical
> >> layer Ethernet OAM
> >>      (802.3ah) or CFM (802.1ag)?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> The response was provided in the above comment section.
> >>
> >> [243] s/uses the overlay network/uses the overlay
> >>      network layer/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done.
> >>
> >> [246] Could we add a few examples of "various overlay network
> >>      technologies"? For the underlay network layer several examples are listed.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Ok.
> >>
> >>      [248] What does "mostly transparent" mean?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> The data plane elements connecting the overlay layer nodes
> >> may not always process the overlay header.
> >
> > ...FB: How about we explain this in the document?
> >
> >>
> >> [254] What does "tight coupling"
> >>      between the link layer and the physical technology mean?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>I am not sure I understand the nit here. Do you see any
> >> difficulty in parsing the sentence?
> >
> > ...FB: Not sure what "tight coupling" means here. Could you clarify what is
> "tight coupling" vs. "not tight coupling"?
> >
> >>
> >> [255] Suggest to avoid
> >>      terms like "popular" - popularity can change, standards stay
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Ok. This is changed as "Ethernet is one such choice..."
> >>
> >> [256] Acronyms
> >>      "POS" and "DWDM" are not defined
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Added.
> >>
> >> [274] Link start/end-points don't seem to
> >>      always align with the underlay network in the diagram
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Fixed it.
> >>
> >> [287] s/may comprise
> >>      of/may consist of/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>We fixed it as "may comprise"..
> >>
> >> [288] s/but not shown/but is not shown/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> We fixed this as "intermediate nodes not shown...:
> >>
> >> [307]
> >>      s/devices/device/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done.
> >>
> >> [308] What is a "controller"?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> We discussed this in the above comment section.
> >>
> >> [314] s/includes/include/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>Done.
> >>
> >> [319]
> >>      Add hSFC to list of acronyms in section 1.2.1
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> This is expanded in the respective section. We added it in
> >> the acronym section as well.
> >>
> >> [320] Add IBN to list of acronyms
> >>      in section 1.2.1
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Ok, Done.
> >>
> >> [325] s/includes/include/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done.
> >> [359] The function/term "controller"
> >>      requires definition.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done, as mentioned in the above comment section.
> >>
> >> [383] s/?./?/
> >>
> >> [398] s/get the got/got/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done.
> >>
> >>   [461]
> >>      s/devices/device/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done.
> >>
> >>   [469] Does it have to be equal cost multipath at the service
> >>      layer, or could unequal cost multipath also be an option for load-
> balancing?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra>I didn’t see any discussion specific to ECMP/UCMP in the
> >> architecture RFC.
> >
> > ...FB: Hmm. I did not see that RFC7665 is only about equal cost multipath.
> >>
> >>   [521] Not sure whether the overlay network establishes the service plane.
> Isn't
> >>      it that the overlay network establishes connectivity for the SFC-related
> >>      functions in the service plane?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> The service layer is established over the overlay network
> >> layer. I am not sure if it is right to say overlay network provides
> >> connectivity for service layer (.
> >
> > ...FB: Overlay network is one component of the service layer, isn't it. So it is
> required but not sufficient.
> >
> >>
> >> [531] s/components/component/ [545] remove
> >>      "underlay"
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done.
> >>
> >> [595] s/devices/device/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done.
> >>
> >> [600] s/action/an action/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done.
> >>
> >> [601] Expand on
> >>      "TTL or other means" (TTL also needs to be added to acronyms in 1.2.1). Is
> this
> >>      specific to NSH? Or specific to IPv4?
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> TTL is listed as well-known abbrev in https://www.rfc-
> >> editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt and so we left it as it is.
> >> TTL in this document refers to NSH TTL field.
> >
> > ...FB: Let's ensure we refer to NSH TTL in this case. Given that SFC can be done
> with other means than NSH, implicit reference to NSH might be a problem.
> >>
> >>   [630] Mention that for "approximation of
> >>      packet loss for a given SFC can be derived" to be applicable, SFC OAM
> packets
> >>      would need to be forwarded the same as live user traffic.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> As it is intending to derive the approximate loss value, I
> >> am not sure if we need this additional consideration that the OAM
> >> packet would need to follow the live user traffic. Let me know if you think
> otherwise.
> >
> > ...FB: IMHO we should - given that it is one potential complication.
> >
> >>
> >>   [636] Is uppercase
> >>      "MUST" applicable to an informational document? Especially given that
> >>      RFC2119/RFC8174 is explicitly referenced by the draft.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Based on various reviewer comments, we removed the use of
> >> any normative statement.
> >>
> >> [666] Add MPLS, TRILL to
> >>      acronyms in 1.2.1
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Ok. Done.
> >>
> >> [678] s/exhaustive/exhaustive./
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done.
> >>
> >> [720] Is uppercase "SHOULD" applicable to an informational document?
> >>      Especially given that RFC2119/RFC8174 is explicitly referenced by the
> draft.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Based on various reviewer comments, we removed the use of
> >> any normative statement.
> >>
> >> [722] Is uppercase "MAY" applicable to an informational document?
> Especially
> >>      given that RFC2119/RFC8174 is explicitly referenced by the draft.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Based on various reviewer comments, we removed the use of
> >> any normative statement.
> >>
> >> [754]
> >>      s/packet/packets/
> >>
> >> [755] s/to next node/to the next node/
> >>
> >>   [771] How does this
> >>      requirement align with the earlier paragraph, e.g. in case a
> >> node sends an ICMP
> >>      reply? It would probably make sense to scope the statement to e.g. NSH.
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> As mentioned in the statement, the node that initiates the
> >> OAM packet must set the marker and so this statement is applicable
> >> for the initiating node.
> >>
> >> [806]
> >>      s/function/functions/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done
> >>
> >> [809] s/from relevant node/from the relevant node/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done
> >>
> >> [810]
> >>      s/generate ICMP/generate an ICMP/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done
> >>
> >> [812] s/from last/from the last/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done
> >>
> >> [830]
> >>      s/perform continuity/perform the continuity/
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done
> >>
> >>   [834] s/with relevant/with the
> >>      relevant
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done
> >>
> >> [835] s/perform partial SFC availability./perform a partial SFC
> >>      availability check./
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done
> >>
> >> [851] For "In-Situ OAM data fields" add a normative
> >>      reference to draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data
> >>
> >> [905] Add "CLI" to section 1.2.1
> >>      acronyms
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done
> >>
> >> [920] Add a reference for NETCONF ->RFC6241
> >>
> >> <Nagendra> Done
> >>
> >> Once again, thanks a lot for the great comments.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Nagendra
> >
> > Thanks again for considering the comments in great detail. Much appreciated.
> >
> > Cheers, Frank
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >