Telechat Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13

Request Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2020-05-05
Requested 2020-04-21
Requested by √Čric Vyncke
Authors Sam Aldrin, Carlos Pignataro, Nagendra Nainar, Ramki Krishnan, Anoop Ghanwani
Draft last updated 2020-05-04
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Tim Chown (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Tirumaleswar Reddy.K (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -13 by Frank Brockners (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -13 by Carlos Bernardos (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Bernardos
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2020-05-04
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 13 (document currently at 15)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-05-04


Thanks a lot for this document. I liked reading it.

I have a first generic comment, minor but that I still wanted to make. Section 2 is about SFC Layering Model, which to me seems like an introduction, but not really specifically related to the core topic of the draft. Do we need that section in this draft? Maybe it can be condensed and included as a first part of section 3.

The document has a big component of requirements and gap analysis, which brings one question: should the document use normative RFC 2199 language when expressing the requirements? In Section 3.2.1 t is used, for example, but not in other parts. I think some work is needed to make this consistent.

I think that the following sentence needs to be reworded: "In order to apply such OAM functions at the service layer, they need to be enhanced to operate a single SF/SFF to multiple SFs/SFFs in an SFC and also in multiple SFCs."

I think the behaviour of SFC-aware nodes that do not support a given OAM operation should be better explained. For example, the sentence "When an SF supports OAM functionality, it is desirable to process the packet and provide an appropriate response to allow end-to-end verification." might be to vague.

Table 4 has a small formatting issue in the Classifier row.

I think some in-band vs out-band OAM discussion would be interesting to add to the document.