Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oaminstate"Candidate for WG Adoption"

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Xiao,

Thank you for your quick response!

Please find some follow-ups, using the same numbering scheme:

1. That’s a strawman. I do not believe anyone said anything about “golden rules” — if I missed the reference please quote it, otherwise let’s stay factual.

However, the framework is a comprehensive document and choosing to simply ignore it is just buying future problems for the WG. That document has a Layering Models, OAM Components, OAM functions, and a Gap Analysis in sections 2-5 respectively. For example, it would be baseline-useful to at least show which area of OAM within the framework your document is trying to solve for. Earlier versions of the multi-layer work mentioned the framework.

2. You wrote:

To the question whether we need a new protocol for SFC active OAM, my answer is yes,

I understand your preference is to invent a new protocol because that’s what your document does. However, more importantly, you have not explained *why*. Let me ask again. What is the technical rationale for this major design choice? It could very well be that it is needed, I’m not saying it is absolutely not. It’s hard to tell without a technical explanation. But you seem to be starting with a *solution* and reverse-engineering requirements. On the framework, Section 5 has a gap analysis. Section 6.4 has OAM toolset applicability.

3. Again, please do not mis quote me. I did NOT say this draft should mention IOAM. That’s covered in the framework. I was asking a technical question: you said it is complementary and I am asking if you could please expand on that and explain. Here’s my question:
What is complementary about it (other than the same complementarity between IOAM and any other OAM solution)?

Lastly you wrote:

I'd like to see more coorperation, even if compitition always exists.

In my experience, innovation is a collaborative effort. Cooperation and collaboration are always positive and useful and one of the reasons for having these standardization venues. We should leverage this cooperation as much as we can. I agree and good point.

Trying to understand the context of the comment: By looking at the mailing list discussion history, and at the author, contributor, and acknowledgement lists, I assume you are referring to draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam needing more cooperation. I’d recommend looking at IOAM and the framework doc. for examples.

Cooperation and collaboration reminded me of this: One important request: can this document please add an “Implementation Status” section?

And one final comment and question:

It appears as if this document is basically two documents.

First, revisions 00-06, it was a model with text like this:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam-02#section-6


6<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam-02#section-6>.  Gap analysis


   This document tries to complement the SFC OAM framework and all the
   SFC OAM functions are the same with the SFC OAM framework.

Then, in rev 07-onwards, it seems to have morphed into a set of Requirements trying to justify a solution:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam-07.txt

And: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam-12.txt&url1=draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam-06.txt

This is noticeable even in the discrepancy between the filename and the old vs. new title. Where’s multilayer?

Is this an OK characterization?

Thanks again!

Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
Excuze typofraphicak errows

On Oct 26, 2018, at 23:39, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Hi Carlos,


Actually I appreciate the discussion initiated by you, even after the deadline, some of my points are as follow:

1. To the adoption process, I have a different view. I don't think an adopted framework document means something like golden rule, as the chair Joel has indicated in his response "If there are mismatches between this and the adopted working group document, it will be up to the working group to resolve them."

2. To the question whether we need a new protocol for SFC active OAM, my answer is yes, as to whether the new protocol models after MPLS LSP Ping or not, I personally don't care about it.

3. I agree to your point that this draft should mention IOAM. I'd like to see more coorperation, even if compitition always exists.


Best Regards,

Xiao Min


原始邮件
发件人：CarlosPignataro(cpignata) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人：肖敏10093570;
抄送人：[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
日 期 ：2018年10月27日 05:35
主 题 ：Re: [sfc]  The SFC WG has placed draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oaminstate"Candidate for WG Adoption"
Hi, Xiao Min,
Thank for for clarifying! I totally missed the “Comments” section including not only the actual “Adoption Call”, but also the deadline!

While the deadline passed, as I just learned, I trust you can entertain this follow-up:

As to the already adopted draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework, if I understand it correctly, this draft is informational and  it doesn't raise any practical solution of SFC OAM, so I believe the alignment between draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework and draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam can be done and should be done after the adoption poll conclude.

It really does not matter what the Intended Status of a document versus the other one is…

draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework does not raise solutions *by design* because it is a *framework* document. However, solutions should align to the framework itself.  Clearly, aligning a solution to an existing framework *after* adoption would defeat  its purpose.

So, if the framework includes *existing* protocols as parts of it — why does this document invents a new protocol from scratch modeled after MPLS LSP Ping?

Xiao, you also wrote this before:

I support WG adotion of this draft, because this work of active OAM is within our charter and complementary with already adopted iOAM.

So, for me to understand, I see no mention of IOAM in draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam. What is complementary about it (other than the same complementarity between IOAM and any other OAM solution)?

Thanks again, ad apologies for the belated note.

— Carlos Pignataro

On Oct 26, 2018, at 4:01 AM, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:


Hi Carlos,


I read the clear comment from the chairs Joel and Jim, especially the following words.

-----------------------------------------------------------   snip   -------------------------------------------------------------

This starts a two week call for that adoption.  Please speak up, preferably with supporting explanations,
in favor of or opposed to the working group adopting this document.

-----------------------------------------------------------   snap   ------------------------------------------------------------

As to the already adopted draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework, if I understand it correctly, this draft is informational and it  doesn't raise any practical solution of SFC OAM, so I believe the alignment between draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework and draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam can be done and should be done after the adoption  poll conclude.


Best Regards,

Xiao Min



发件人：CarlosPignataro(cpignata) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人：肖敏10093570;
抄送人：[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
日 期 ：2018年10月26日 11:35
主 题 ：Re: [sfc]  The SFC WG has placed draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam instate"Candidate for WG Adoption"
Is this an active adoption poll issued by the chairs? Candidate indicates potential or intent, not action, so far as I know.
As this is being discussed, does this draft conform with the SFC WG adopted OAM framework draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework?

Thanks,

— Carlos Pignataro

On Oct 10, 2018, at 1:52 AM, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:


Hi SFC Chairs et al,


I support WG adotion of this draft, because this work of active OAM is within our charter and complementary with already adopted iOAM.


Best Regards,

Xiao Min


_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

发件人：IETFSecretariat <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人：[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
日 期 ：2018年10月09日 06:20
主 题 ：[sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam in state"Candidate for WG Adoption"

The SFC WG has placed draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Joel Halpern)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam/

Comment:
This document has been presented at several SFC working group sessions.  The
authors have asked for Working Group Adoption.  This starts a two week call
for that adoption.  Please speak up, preferably with supporting explanations,
in favor of or opposed to the working group adopting this document. The last
call will end CoB  somewhere 22-October-2018 (e.g. by the time I do anything
about it, it will be at least the 23rd everywhere.)

Thank you,
Joel and Jim

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc