Re: [forces] Adoption of ForCES Inter-FE LFB draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb

"Joachimpillai, Damascene M" <damascene.joachimpillai@verizon.com> Sat, 20 December 2014 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <damascene.joachimpillai@verizon.com>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2EE1A8A10 for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:34:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iDc8bvohChLO for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fldsmtpe02.verizon.com (fldsmtpe02.verizon.com [140.108.26.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82D201A875E for <forces@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:34:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=verizon.com; i=damascene.joachimpillai@verizon.com; q=dns/txt; s=corp; t=1419035661; x=1450571661; h=from:to:date:subject:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=5LV72f9YmNhGEMdd8Gn9Boe+nBAPiOgWSt6mAPRYOhA=; b=NWgfmYs0rfQKYwxH/fLuXLCryRRpmVdy03Ycl7CVyWJUwiaSYv5DDW0q ednuzGooKKR89vEBsIIcb4zTKfXiX5SlHUadMERy9lZuUBr37EmPruLRx VD1AKVBPxi+ymQ1uSysDGiI3+0V6GDLWSdIX6/zi5yXPllqEBtr4jQIZg 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false
Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2014 00:34:20 +0000
From: "Joachimpillai, Damascene M" <damascene.joachimpillai@verizon.com>
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,610,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="935099099"
Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb02.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.189]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2014 00:34:20 +0000
Received: from FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.125.32]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.189]) with mapi; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:34:19 -0500
To: Joel <joel@stevecrocker.com>, Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>, "forces@ietf.org" <forces@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:34:19 -0500
Thread-Topic: [forces] Adoption of ForCES Inter-FE LFB draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb
Thread-Index: AdAb4sW/jIJGuEusTm+M+BrwABlXFQACa8xQ
Message-ID: <689CE984BDBA8B4CAF3EA6E2CDC5CACB018CEC0287@FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com>
References: <CAAFAkD8o9m5AeOLw=sszyeqsDSjCiFUgXFspbwbejOwYqgabwg@mail.gmail.com> <5494B331.3080407@stevecrocker.com>
In-Reply-To: <5494B331.3080407@stevecrocker.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/ZuvQzEyLAdqHRe3_IQnI2l9KFhc
Subject: Re: [forces] Adoption of ForCES Inter-FE LFB draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 00:34:23 -0000

I agree with Joel's proposal on the metadata rewrite function. Initial thought was to have the metadata pre-determined. One can also publish and trim based on supported (sort of like capability exchange). Should this be bounced against the SFC WG document that talks about Service chaining? Just a thought. 

-- DJ

-----Original Message-----
From: forces [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 6:22 PM
To: Jamal Hadi Salim; forces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [forces] Adoption of ForCES Inter-FE LFB draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb

I support adoption of this document by the working group.  The issue addressed is real, and suitable for IETF standardization.  The mechanisms described seems appropriate to the task.

Once adopted, as Evangelos suggested, the working group should decide how to handle the case of inter-FE with the FEs controlled by different CEs.  I see two choices, either of which is reasonable.  We can declare that the scope is only inter-FE under control of a single CE, or we can declare that if there are two CEs they must agree out-of-band on the IDs for metadata.  (The one solution I would like to avoid is specifying a metadata rewrite function to transform the IDs at the border.)

Yours,
Joel

On 12/10/14 9:40 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> This is a re-initialized call for adoption.
> As per last meeting discussion and charter requirements 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb
> as the WG document for the inter FE chartered work.
>
> If there are any objections or suggestions please raise them on the 
> list (dont send me or DJ private email).
> Silence implies consent.
>
> The initial call for adoption was withdrawn because we wanted to make 
> sure we can get the code sane to the proposed ideas.
> We have achieved that goal at this point.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
> _______________________________________________
> forces mailing list
> forces@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces
>

_______________________________________________
forces mailing list
forces@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces