Subject: [sfc] #12 (control-plane): Remove "SFC/SFP Diagnosis" Section

From: "sfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:28:49 -0000

#12: Remove "SFC/SFP Diagnosis" Section

 [[Note: This section is expected to be removed once the working
       group adopts a document on OAM.]]

 4.9. SFC/SFP Diagnosis

    The Control & Management planes should allow for the following:

    o  Assess the status of the serviceability of a SF (i.e., the SF
       provides the service(s) it is configured for).  Obviously, this
       assessment must not rely only on IP reachability to decide whether
       a SF is up and running.
    o  Diagnose the availability of a SFC (including the availability of
       a particular SFP bound to a given SFC).
    o  Retrieve the set of service function chains that are enabled
       within a domain.
    o  Assess whether an SFC-enabled domain is appropriately configured
       (including, check the configured chains are matching what should
       be configured in that domain, and ensure coherent classification
       rules are installed in and enforced by all the Classifiers of the
       SFC-enabled domain).
    o  Correlate classification policies with observed forwarding actions
       (including, assess the output of the classification rule applied
       on a packet presented to a Classifier of an SFC-enabled domain).
    o  Support the correlation between a service function chain and the
       actual forwarding path followed by a packet matching that service
       function chain.
    o  Notify the SFC Control Element whenever some (critical) events
       occur (for example, a malfunctioning SF instance).
    o  Re-use SF built-in diagnostic procedures specific to each SF.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-sfc-control-
  [email-masked]       |  [email-masked]
     Type:  task                     |     Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                    |  Milestone:
Component:  control-plane            |    Version:
 Severity:  -                        |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sfc/trac/ticket/12>
sfc <http://tools.ietf.org/sfc/>

---

From: "sfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:34 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 Removed from draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-00.

 This sentence was added to Section 3.1

    Note, the SFC control plane must be able to invoke SFC OAM
    mechanisms, and to determine the results of OAM operations.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-sfc-
  [email-masked]       |  [email-masked]
     Type:  task                     |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  minor                    |   Milestone:
Component:  control-plane            |     Version:
 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sfc/trac/ticket/12#comment:1>
sfc <http://tools.ietf.org/sfc/>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:16:25 -0400

I do not consider this issue closed or fixed.

More generally, as a working group document, the working group needs to 
agree to the resolution the authors make before any issue is considered 
closed.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:33:28 +0000

Hi Joel,

The issue is "closed" as there is no such section in draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-00! 

We had a note in draft-ww that basically says that we need to move that section once an OAM draft is adopted by the WG. I created an issue in the tracker so that the authors of the OAM draft are aware of that text, fwiw. 

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Envoyé : mercredi 16 septembre 2015 19:16
> À : sfc issue tracker; [email-masked];
> BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : [email-masked]
> Objet : Re: [sfc] #12 (control-plane): Remove "SFC/SFP Diagnosis" Section
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:33:57 -0400

I actually think your proposed resolution for this issue is correct.

However, until the WG agrees, it is merely a proposed resolution.  We as 
authors (and you as lead author) do not get to declare issues closed 
based on our own judgment.

Yours,
Joel