[mpls] comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Wed, 05 December 2018 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D68D130E7B for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:56:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 7hiK52cjYfth for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:56:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-f46.google.com (mail-ua1-f46.google.com [209.85.222.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A410A130E95 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:56:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-f46.google.com with SMTP id z23so7507912uam.1 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:56:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=L5XrB0kqYtup9x/cY3fNr9q4FxXcsfrho5DBqj/rxXc=; b=qT3MPSsudF+dyE/b75rcRURigzh9Ek1sfFhgRuz9hG12YTrAY7BXUCi5MZDJjRKcoL 4ULKZh47cXhgzRziM/0hAn4PIO7JU1QvddNpoNb0sDKU+clVbGdB3K/qsNdWXksl2Y4/ 7bL0D6kTUsk8db0I/XJtC+M7d2Vgy9MtfinKeH3YD/F8oDJUEYHUoqE0KUNP9SIkpJ/I hC5Vz2XvuC6C1j4+28WqzyF/6YDc58iOrdcJ64RIg0x6CCtCzYLiMkKHBVWubChdIX/H XfkFjZgIn54J+2UOg+AwPW3TDUbWEyt4xlLaQhNnUmeD0ZtWcsDf6M3GF75RACPHvBsb Yi5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZpb8KRwm8T8gnUJj2Cm2c/vot2E7QRG+8Wh3ZDFZ+jS9KpF8zW DKZ7QycAfLy9kOm8PDZDfbQaILzo8CqwQPyuxH7faA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VqRo/+VEWIFDJpSPuh9BvLuGVSjYSFlK5JeGXX5eJoaJdG3TctBlttGiR68KECKGvThoib2zfiZ+rLftLQJb8=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:15ab:: with SMTP id i40mr11076772uae.70.1544036212539; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:56:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA=duU3jt+cf3beJmwfAZQVWDGvCV1wmkQpUjxUqrzKkJVW_og@mail.gmail.com> <b6cc364b-6b03-d222-7320-ecabc1735ef5@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <b6cc364b-6b03-d222-7320-ecabc1735ef5@pi.nu>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:56:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzyt8FG1JDOG0tkfySej3nwxA98T2=v+5LUUL0ZaAaD1AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f81010057c4af14e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/6a8-NsOiP6gXCs_16WtThz-JcF4>
Subject: [mpls] comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:56:55 -0000

I think it would be useful for this document to reference
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfc
in the introduction to say that "using MPLS to replace the function of NSH
is described elsewhere [x]".

I think the following:
>>>

the SFF Label will rise to the top of the label stack before
the packet is forwarded to another node and before the packet
is dispatched to a higher layer.

>>>
would be better worded as:

"as a part of normal processing, the SFF Label will become

the top label in the stack before the packet is forwarded

to another node and before the packet is dispatched to a higher layer."


Thanks,
Anoop