Subject: [sfc] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-sfc-01-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:26:01 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-sfc-01-02: 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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sfc/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not blocking this charter, but it needs some improvements before being
ready.

-
The focus of the SFC working group moving forward will be on aspects of the
architecture and/or protocol that need to be addressed to enable effective
deployment and usage of this work. In order to maintain focus, the working
group will primarily produce and advance documents on four topics:

No need to use the future tense.
Once posted, present tense is fine

-
"1) Metadata - Define the common type-length-value encoded metadata types with
Standards Track RFCs"
Typically, the document types are mentioned at the bottom of the charter, in
the milestones.

ex: Aug 2015  Submit to IESG Standards Track document specifying the generic
service function chaining header encapsulation

Or maybe you want to specifically draw attention to "Standard Track" in the
charter text?

- From the old charter:
5. Manageability: Work on the management and configuration of SFC
   components related to the support of Service Function Chaining will
   certainly be needed, but first needs to be better understood and
   scoped.

Do I understand that this paragraph changed into:
3) OAM and O&M - In order for operators to use these tools in production
networks, they need Operations, Administration, and Maintenance tools, as well
as management mechanisms.  This includes YANG models, OAM frameworks, and
specific OAM mechanisms to address operational needs.

-
3) OAM and O&M - In order for operators to use these tools in production
networks, they need Operations, Administration, and Maintenance tools, as well
as management mechanisms.  This includes YANG models, OAM frameworks, and
specific OAM mechanisms to address operational needs.

The OAM work should be based on LIME? If yes, please mention it.
Btw, extend O&M

-
3. YANG models for the SFC Components.

Proposal:
3. YANG models for the management of SFC Components.

Are you missing OAM in there? I see point 5 and 6 that concern OAM documents,
but no YANG models.

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:45:16 -0500

Hi Benoit,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sfc/

Fiexed

-
> Or maybe you want to specifically draw attention to "Standard Track" in the

Yes - this is a negotiated compromise where the WG has come to agreement,
so it is
intentionally mentioned in the charter.

> The OAM work should be based on LIME? If yes, please mention it.

I haven't heard any clear intention of basing the OAM work on LIME, so I'd
prefer not
to mention it in the charter.

> 3. YANG models for the management of SFC Components.

Agreed

Are you missing OAM in there? I see point 5 and 6 that concern OAM
> documents,

I think that improving 3 provides the room for YANG models around OAM.

Regards,
Alia