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

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nagendra, authors,

Many thanks for addressing the comments and posting the updated draft.

We are still waiting for two remaining authors to respond to the IPR call:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/b5FHtp2IB-8MQLEMCZkOwnN5Aqk

Once we complete the IPR call we can proceed with the publication process.

Thanks,
Tal.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:31 PM Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Tal,
>
>
>
> Thank you again for the review and comments. We have submitted a new
> revision addressing the comments.
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11.txt
>
> has been successfully submitted by Nagendra Kumar and posted to the
>
> IETF repository.
>
>
>
> Name:                  draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework
>
> Revision:              11
>
> Title:                      Service Function Chaining (SFC) Operations,
> Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Framework
>
> Document date:               2019-09-19
>
> Group:                  sfc
>
> Pages:                   21
>
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11.txt
>
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework/
>
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11
>
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework
>
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nagendra
>
>
>
> *From: *Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:29 AM
> *To: *Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, Service Function Chaining IETF
> list <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [sfc] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10
> *Resent-From: *<[e-mail]>
> *Resent-To: *<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, Nagendra
> Kumar <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:28 AM
>
>
>
> Hi Tal,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the comments. We will address the same and will submit a new
> version.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nagendra
>
>
>
> *From: *sfc <[e-mail]> on behalf of Tal Mizrahi <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Monday, September 2, 2019 at 1:14 AM
> *To: *"[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, Service Function Chaining IETF
> list <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[sfc] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10
>
>
>
> 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.
>