IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13: (with COMMENT)

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 18 May 2020 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 317053A080B; Mon, 18 May 2020 08:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 jl_E05o7Oiv2; Mon, 18 May 2020 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 04DCB3A07E1; Mon, 18 May 2020 08:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49QjcH5dMzz6G7vR; Mon, 18 May 2020 08:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1589815775; bh=HNVumXBx292c247EbrKL2nQQSahZXX10RQRzRmolwFk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=bkrtbNWlHgWWWj3oZb103GHhy8Za9RETS1UBAUG0FVKpQ5sKCdid+Nu3CWb3ZwnQp Jukg64nbLO+RRr8jAyC4FRzCiNoGXDWAWm4SRmZxliNrU9jWOA2cM5dB1UDMemph08 ue1WoI26x/F4QNGPKf4Yb9DqOqN8bbi0OxvnLT+k=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49QjcG3pwlz6GD9J; Mon, 18 May 2020 08:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <naikumar=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework@ietf.org>, "sfc-chairs@ietf.org" <sfc-chairs@ietf.org>, "tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com" <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
References: <158885879619.21045.4121183716505139454@ietfa.amsl.com> <E44E9C8C-3ABA-4723-91F8-4F51E2EF7672@cisco.com> <9f34e226-9edf-0801-4d22-56d85e970d2a@joelhalpern.com> <fbdc127b-8666-e205-c2c7-1e78f3278a72@joelhalpern.com> <CAMMESswJjTMmCEwb1k-Zaz_1fT4SWLXY75jmZOHW8Y_wwb0DMw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <f08383dc-67c2-a3a3-9220-4ada28d7754c@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:29:33 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswJjTMmCEwb1k-Zaz_1fT4SWLXY75jmZOHW8Y_wwb0DMw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/nXWLy4lz_AvvETlPGWzzhDiaUUo>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 18 May 2020 15:29:37 -0000

Thanks Alvaro.  I will leave this up to the authors and whelpherd, and 
get back out of the way.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/18/2020 10:44 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On May 17, 2020 at 12:07:47 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:
> 
> 
> Joel:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 
>> Alvaro, Murray no longer has a Discuss. So I am not sure what your
>> stance is.
> 
> I've seen the proposed text and resolution to the DISCUSS.   I can
> live with the resolution.
> 
> 
>> And the particular change the authors have proposed seems to me to go
>> too far, apparently promising that SFC OAM will validity SF
>> functionality. That is out of scope for the document.
>>
>> Can you please clarify whether you feel there is still a discuss level
>> issue here? And if you can live without this change?
> 
> In reading your other comments, I see your concern of setting
> expectations beyond what the WG, or even the RTG Area, would have
> expertise on.  Personally, I think there's a difference between what
> an informational framework document may say and the expected product
> of the WG.  IOW, a mention in the document shouldn't immediately
> translate into a work item.
> 
> 
> Because the document mentions the SF's ability to provide the service
> as important, then I still think that not mentioning that as a gap
> means that the document is incomplete.  I am not looking for a
> solution in this document, and Murray's proposed text works for me --
> maybe something could be added to it to explain why:
> 
> Current>
>     The task of evaluating the true availability of a Service Function is a
>     complex activity, currently having no simple, unified solution.  There is
>     currently no standard means of doing so, and accordingly none is proposed
>     here.
> 
> Add (Suggestion)>
> 
>     ...  Any such mechanism would be far from a typical OAM function, so it is
>     not explored as part of the analysis in Sections 4 and 5.
> 
> 
> Just a suggestion -- I am ok either way.
> 
> 
> Thanks!!
> 
> Alvaro.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email