[mpls] request to reconsider the new version of draft-xu-sfc-using-mpls-spring

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

Hi SFC co-chairs,

I have remove those options (i.e., encoding SFC using a label stack consist of global labels and inserting a protocol field after the label stack for MPLS payload indication) which would cause changes to the MPLS architecture in the latest version (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-sfc-using-mpls-spring-03) 

Therefore, we co-authors think it's now becoming suitable for the SFC WG to reconsider this simplified MPLS-SPRING-based SFC solution which doesn't require any change to the MPLS base architecture.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xuxiaohu
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 8:49 AM
> To: 'Jim Guichard (jguichar)'; Ron Parker
> Cc: mpls at ietf.org; <spring at ietf.org>; sfc at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [sfc] New Version Notification for 
> draft-xu-sfc-using-mpls-spring-02.txt
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Understood.
> 
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Guichard (jguichar) [mailto:jguichar at cisco.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:11 PM
> > To: Ron Parker; Xuxiaohu
> > Cc: mpls at ietf.org; <spring at ietf.org>; sfc at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [sfc] New Version Notification for 
> > draft-xu-sfc-using-mpls-spring-02.txt
> >
> > Hi Xiaohu,
> >
> > Thomas and I read your latest draft and believe that you will need 
> > to take it to the MPLS WG as a first step. There are a number of 
> > things within the document that may require changes to the base MPLS 
> > architecture and the SFC WG is not the right community to address 
> > those. Given this we will not be able to consider this document in 
> > the SFC WG without agreement from the broader MPLS community.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jim & Thomas