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

James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> Tue, 30 July 2019 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0261200F5 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=futurewei.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tSmwGmfMVlIn for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr810090.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.81.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5109B12007C for <sfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=K8SVOaY5wUruvhuFfrbgZvNYPww8GnNiep3aB9EPW8ArDtuhfTa9uTiuMM+Dw9mvfOzTp6ob9gerLV0jDTHOuHmCkaq4Ou/38TaJULFFB49AvP6//nj98QvfD8I3KYZUNuXOip1zZYWWd36v79fGELpeGmuJoulMRNaG/DFdnX/dDhSvJYzzbumbzr1Syft+B980mMWv8G8AI4zc4KR/ESEQwk6x7VjpysbDkpuHaZy0KGdmuzZjdeZbsW93RUwFVR6iiC+NQT5+ZhloFF96lPBh8oYhggJlwfnefkVofJh9aQeAQzN3TiDmIJhVRdTMtd+z43BxT3plnAUrM/mEmQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=k2vFn1RI1YUUs3jUOiAeK7BEoX6oHxOqo/80X4yJ7+Q=; b=JVPLzSypt5cPI8Y7BhAhe86VE3OfJZoQ+fKzuHfronwuu258ODjK2k/Ymxce2Bl1VeTjc44aaZnr45Eer6xCcSjA88hup+thxf90Pxf1T00upxNiRJNPlrqX3i7e9co5XFA3dM0sExe/58UwC6FEOrBb4IKkVl7Tci9ILWYQeYoZO6PX5fL9zGegt/x7//UcHbjiTNDHmxSGqjI++N/jc0KfA65YpYF883I8k/R9pMe0VLO8x2n9E9hBuAmBg5pszuzeTKlcldHVc0tzn7dekG5S3H5+DC2W80vrzEQrKajXHRCrA71H9li8Kbe1sgRmJabpmDxg1n1qJKkMkqjpXQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1;spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=futurewei.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=futurewei.com;dkim=pass header.d=futurewei.com;arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Futurewei.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=k2vFn1RI1YUUs3jUOiAeK7BEoX6oHxOqo/80X4yJ7+Q=; b=Zq08ie99w7f09oCB4QKS4XieCCsRMhSlbDSVPkrMcr1bgMdzVJkOZ3OoWBz8NdOtUovzBAO0kr8RCHHFHzEShqVljXsDyM4cnySsTAQafwOytmbzToODsvWkwkDDjZr3Zg8Rg20orkIquNDnmwUEw5f8XL8MOMtXKC7YwDcvryw=
Received: from CH2PR13MB3608.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (52.132.246.219) by CH2PR13MB3704.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (20.180.15.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2136.9; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 22:31:12 +0000
Received: from CH2PR13MB3608.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::242e:bba8:3a1d:6e42]) by CH2PR13MB3608.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::242e:bba8:3a1d:6e42%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2136.010; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 22:31:12 +0000
From: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG Last Call draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-06
Thread-Index: AQHVFWHG6SZyvEyD3EGGLNC6v36bBKbGaPaAgADWboCAHEqoAIAAj8togAADDLA=
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 22:31:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CH2PR13MB3608DFF8C20A51A8B2FC4B4ED2DC0@CH2PR13MB3608.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BYAPR13MB25978FD458B59EB22067685FD21E0@BYAPR13MB2597.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmWDPN5Qs+bbm1-yPK3i4tA_Nug=ZicrZfOJzO-ibteQJA@mail.gmail.com> <DB8FEEDD-6376-4172-B7E6-C176C22ED985@cisco.com>, <CA+RyBmXpaODq49rFYj_KsBak1P0vTdn8yhRz-BVkUwZEauEbLA@mail.gmail.com> <E456FB31-BA70-400E-B7B4-7A45555B38CC@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E456FB31-BA70-400E-B7B4-7A45555B38CC@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=james.n.guichard@futurewei.com;
x-originating-ip: [47.14.29.133]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9f037547-e88c-413f-75f4-08d7153da06a
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:CH2PR13MB3704;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CH2PR13MB3704:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 6
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CH2PR13MB3704DB0686A02492EE382BFBD2DC0@CH2PR13MB3704.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0114FF88F6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(136003)(396003)(366004)(346002)(39850400004)(376002)(189003)(199004)(7736002)(6436002)(4326008)(446003)(25786009)(9686003)(606006)(966005)(236005)(413944005)(68736007)(99286004)(81166006)(486006)(6306002)(8936002)(81156014)(14454004)(5660300002)(316002)(8676002)(52536014)(11346002)(53546011)(53936002)(476003)(5070765005)(102836004)(54896002)(71200400001)(71190400001)(66574012)(6246003)(55016002)(6506007)(517774005)(440504004)(86362001)(6116002)(74316002)(3846002)(33656002)(186003)(110136005)(790700001)(66066001)(2906002)(66556008)(7696005)(64756008)(66446008)(66476007)(26005)(66946007)(76176011)(76116006)(478600001)(256004)(561944003)(14444005)(229853002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CH2PR13MB3704; H:CH2PR13MB3608.namprd13.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: futurewei.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: EXmkup4b1j4+9/qrK3sLMkvvwige8FcwRaCfzXPFl3kPDw8PnmIIjTDqyyJ3eenNapi8BJccbMwFiYgIaev+mXUYPI+BOh2VCWQr84WdrkbWaHiPGqkX6nbsiCl05XdtdhM7gCnhBJLCdqjuGlEuz+z/u6nLKbk/SE7yx4gdkgOMB/bYB8ZVRfudkeB6VPcomjblqlZZHsdPw7jGnPpx0kvNFb/pBRapx8fOnK4whrq7uMXEve0n9p1hHrYenKMUZ9gLYwK4q1S3iNLze0EQDV5nsMdzehHhHj9IO6BhWzzBHNg+SiCTlftWbEigm/g0nqqpb6BzYWL3lHhSYgSdB+AUCjvZwkUobK8RvnS2zdFYF17HHa8bgg+WrdxYnKM6lISsIDURMt6WYrVK2QXbcXR+XCpHB2Hh9dK//ogFd1c=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CH2PR13MB3608DFF8C20A51A8B2FC4B4ED2DC0CH2PR13MB3608namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: Futurewei.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9f037547-e88c-413f-75f4-08d7153da06a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Jul 2019 22:31:12.3505 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0fee8ff2-a3b2-4018-9c75-3a1d5591fedc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: jguichar@futurewei.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CH2PR13MB3704
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/51Tg4JAESO0MY_mNeT37M8iP6AE>
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG Last Call draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-06
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 22:31:18 -0000

Dear Greg,

For outstanding issues that you feel are not addressed in v-10 of this document, please provide a detailed list of items (with specific suggestions on textual changes if required) so that the editors may respond on the mailing list to each item and hopefully we can come to a timely resolution.

Thank you,

Jim



From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>; sfc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG Last Call draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-06

Dear Greg,

Thank you for checking the new revision expeditiously, and for your follow-up.

Let me first address your second question below. I find the tone of your comment unprofessional and the content ad-hominem (it speaks about authors and their intentions and not about technical comments (it is really borderline insulting)). I debated whether to respond to that part, but I find that kindness and putting oneself in the other person shoes, seeking win-wins, is a most effective path. We are here to collaborate on making the Internet better. What we write here gets archived, and there is no need to resort to unnecessarily confrontational language or to assume the worst in others.

So, responding with a smile, please see the diffs at https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10.txt<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Cae469def65704703051208d715397337%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637001208804262067&sdata=qDzFSKXnQPAy2ntu0uLnsDd0APuqYPN3YozFyzdeWqo%3D&reserved=0>

You will see that two new terms were added to the acronyms, and a third was corrected. That is in direct response to your comment as agreed in the email below, when I thanked you for finding those editorials.

You will also see consolidation of the table and text exactly as described in the response below also. I gave a proposal and asked the WG for preference, but saw no replies. That answers your first question.

Consequently, when you say that none of your comments were addressed, that statement is factually incorrect. In addition to the changes in the document as per diffs, comments are also addressed on the list. Not everything will result in the specific textual change you envision.

It could very well be that we missed something, and if so we would love to be notified about it and will do our best to follow the WG’s direction. Tell us what we missed. But please be specific and technically focused. Instead of accusing, please quadruple check and ask.

At this point I’ll pass the token to the WG chairs to give directions and call whatever they see that needs to happen in the editing of this document. I feel we wasted lots of cycles on non-tech.

Best,
Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
Excuze typofraphicak errows

2019/07/30 15:27、Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>のメール:
Dear Jim, Joel, Editors, and All,
-010 version was published recently. I was quite surprised to find that the discussion of O&M in SFC, i.e., SFC manageability, is now in its own section. To confuse things even more, Editors kept the original title of the table that lists various management tools: Table 4: OAM Tool GAP Analysis. That raises several questions:

  *   How O&M tools related to the scope of the document on OAM?
  *   Are Editors committed to resolving comments or hope that a commentator would not check back?
I'm asking that last question because none of my comments from this note has been addressed by the recent update.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:24 AM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com<mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>> wrote:
Thank you for your comments, Greg.

Please see inline.


On Jul 11, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> 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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc6291&data=02%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Cae469def65704703051208d715397337%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637001208804272055&sdata=68dip4XjIdGSBZRWKcFB%2FYUAkhGAfKuHG7zLbtgMPNA%3D&reserved=0> 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 <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com<mailto:james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>> 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%7Cae469def65704703051208d715397337%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637001208804272055&sdata=PDneffIQfjlOgkwpnK5m4UN6drZUfLghUMTgM1T55Ls%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
sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsfc&data=02%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Cae469def65704703051208d715397337%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637001208804282049&sdata=Jmyt5ABUwp%2FTypJV39xEqT6pXjp%2Bz8sw%2Fa2qH3COT70%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsfc&data=02%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Cae469def65704703051208d715397337%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637001208804282049&sdata=Jmyt5ABUwp%2FTypJV39xEqT6pXjp%2Bz8sw%2Fa2qH3COT70%3D&reserved=0>