Subject: [sfc] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 17:23:34 -0700

Erik Kline 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[ nits ]]

Several minor grammar tweaks, which others have identified, and hopefully can
be fixed in these final stages of publication. A few of them I did mention
below.

[ section 2 ]
* The first paragraph describing Figure 1 has a few grammar bugs. May I suggest
  something to the effect of:

   In Figure 1, the service layer elements such as classifier and SF are
   depicted as virtual machines that are interconnected using an overlay
   network.  The underlay network may comprise multiple intermediate nodes
   not shown in the figure that provide underlay connectivity between the
   service layer elements.

[ section 3.1.1 ]
* s/the got/the/

* The 2nd to last paragraph could use a simplifying rewrite. The conversational
  tone I think impedes the direct, clear transmission of intended meaning.

* "The SF availability can be performed": does this refer to the *measurement*
  of SF availability?

[ section 3.2.1 ]
* s/comprised of/composed of/

[ section 7 ]
* Do 6.4.1 and/or 6.4.4 suffice to perform topology exploration of the SFC?

---

From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 01:06:01 +0000

HI Eric,

Thank you for the comments. Please see inline for the response..

    
    
    [[ nits ]]

<Nagendra> We are addressing the nits pointed by other reviewers as well.

    [ section 2 ]

<Nagendra> We got similar correction from other reviewers and fixed it.

    [ section 3.1.1 ]
    * s/the got/the/
    
<Nagendra> Fixed.

<Nagendra> Can you please share more details about which part specifically is ambiguous?.

<Nagendra> We changed this as "SF availability check"..

    [ section 3.2.1 ]
    
<Nagendra> Fixed this one.

    [ section 7 ]
    
<Nagendra> This section lists various OAM toolsets applicable at the service layer. The solution documents can clarify how these (or an extension of these tools) can be used for SFC topology tracing.

Once again thanks a lot for the great comments.

Thanks,
Nagendra