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

Can we please be careful not to get too far into monitoring the 
functioning of the SF.  That is explicitly out of scope for the 
document.  This modification seems to move dangerously in that direction.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/16/2020 10:36 AM, Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) wrote:
> Hi Alvaro,
> 
> Thank you for the comments. Please see inline for the response.
> 
> 
>      Alvaro Retana 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:
>      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      
>      I support Murray's DISCUSS.
>      
> <Nagendra> We will address the DISCUSS comments from Murray.
> 
>      I appreciate the fact that "More specifics on the mechanism to characterize
>      SF-specific OAM to validate the service offering are outside the scope of this
>      document." (§3.1.1)
>      
>      The issue I want to point out, which I believe is a significant omission in
>      this document, is the lack of mention in §4 and §5 of the validation of the
>      service offering as an SFC OAM function or in the gap analysis.  IOW, the
>      availability of the SF from the point of view of its ability to provide the
>      service is pointed out as important in §3.1.1, but there is no further
>      consideration later in the document.
>      
>      [I believe that this issue borders on a DISCUSS -- and while I would really
>      like to see further consideration in the text, I decided to trust that the
>      authors and the responsible AD will take care of it.]
>      
>      <Nagendra> I think, this can be addressed by adding the below bullet point in Section 4.1
> 
> "Ability to validate the service functionality of an SF."
> 
> Please let me know if this address your concern. Please feel free to suggest any text improvement.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nagendra
> 
>      
>      
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
> 