Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc

[Lizhong Jin <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

This is an alternative for SFC implementation in MPLS network. Since it is WG adoption, not last call, basically I believe the document is ready for adoption.

And I have one concern to the solution regarding the metadata. There is no per packet metadata like NSH, which will surely bring some restriction to the applications. I know some SFC application even does not require metadata, but I did one development of SFC application using per-packet metadata (strictly saying, it is per-flow) which is of course not under MPLS infrastructure.

If possible, could authors add a section to describe what kind of capability this approach could achieve, and what could not compared with NSH. With that context, the operators could understand better, and easier to decide which solution to deploy.

Regards

Lizhong

On 2/3/2018 14:02，Loa Andersson<[e-mail]> wrote：

Matthew, Lizhong, Sam, and Mach,

You have been selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-farrel-mpls-sfc.

Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know
that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own
document.

Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it
useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks),
and is the document technically sound?

We are interested in knowing whether the document is ready to be
considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have to be perfect at this
point, but should be a good start). Please remember that it often is
easier to progress the document when it has become a working group
document. All comments in the MPLS-RT review needs to be addressed,
but please think carefully about whether a comment is gating the
adoption or could just as easily be addressed after the adoption.

Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and WG
secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments
may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.

If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about what
needs to be resolved before adopting it as a working group document, and
what can wait until the document is a working group document and the
working group has the revision control.

Are you able to review this draft by February 28, 2018? Please respond
whether you are available to do the review in a timely fashion.


Thanks, Loa
(as MPLS WG co-chair)
--


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]