Re: [mpls] [sfc] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc

[" 徐小虎(义先) " <[e-mail]>]

Hi Deborah and Martin,
draft-farrel* currently describes two SFC approaches : one is to encode the NSH info, more specifically, the SPI and SI info into two MPLS labels which is a stateful SFC approach just like NSH, another is to leverage the SR, most specifically MPLS-SR to realize a stateless SFC approach (see section 6). 
I wonder whether the former approach or both approaches should be pursued in the MPLS WG from your points of view as ADs.
BTW, as has been pointed out by many people before, the latter has overlapping with the approach as has been described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining-03 (Note that this draft has been proposed many years before and now it has been merged into https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-clad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00 which includes both MPLS-SR-based and SRv6-based SFC approaches). Fortunately, some author of draft-farrel* has acknoledged this overlapping issue indirectly in his previous email. Unfortunately, the current modifcation of section 6 DOES NOT solve the overlapping issue at all. 
Best regards,Xiaohu
------------------------------------------------------------------BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>2018年3月30日(星期五) 02:58Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>; "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]>[e-mail] <[e-mail]>; 徐小虎(义先) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>RE: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
Hi, Both myself (AD for MPLS) and Martin (AD for SFC and SPRING) were consulted on this draft and we agreed for it to progress in MPLS. WG adoption allows the document to be a document of the working group vs. the authors. If you have input for the document, provide it on the MPLS list. The document will be coordinated at key transitions with SFC. This is not the first
 time that documents early in their timelines may seem to overlap in the different groups, and need the authors to collaborate to sort out/merge, as these documents are ultimately products of IETF, and not the individual authors. I noted below it is said that this new version does not eliminate the conflict with the other draft’s approach. It is best to say specifically which text is in conflict and do a proposal to align. Thanks,Deborah  From: sfc [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:06 AM
To: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; 徐小虎(义先) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
 mpls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Hey Wim, It is very obvious on what basis this adoption happened ....   If ADs do not take any serious action here it will progress smooth & direct to RFC.  I am only a bit puzzled why the WG last call has not started yet on this :/.  Best,R.  On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]> wrote:Similar comment here on what basis do we adopt this. There were serious issues and although a new draft was posted they have not been addressed. On what basis do you adopt this? I thought IETF works on basis of consensus and in my view
 this was not achieved so far. From iPhoneFrom: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of
徐小虎(义先) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:17:04 AM
To: mpls; [e-mail]
Cc: draft-farrel-mpls-sfc; 
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Hi Loa, I don't believe the modification in Section 6 of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc (https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05.txt)
 has eliminated the serious conflict with the SR-MPLS-based SFC approach as described in  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining-03 (note
 that this draft has been merged into https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-clad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00)
 as had been pointed by many people before. Therefore, it seems a little bit unreasonable to hurry the adoption of the current version, IMHO. Xiaohu------------------------------------------------------------------Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>2018年3月28日(星期三)
 15:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>[mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Working Group,


The MPLS working group have decided to adopt draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05 as

an MPLS working group document.


Can the authors please post draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00, without any other

than administrative (filename, version and dates) changes.


/Loa

for the MPLS wg chairs


-- 



Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]

Senior MPLS Expert

Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]


_______________________________________________

mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________

mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls