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

[" 徐小虎(义先) " <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I fully agree with Zafar's and Wim's suggestions.

Best regards,
Xiaohu 



来自钉钉专属商务邮箱------------------------------------------------------------------发件人：Zafar Ali (zali)<[e-mail]>日　期：2018年03月31日 04:40:18收件人：Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)<[e-mail]>; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A<[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk<[e-mail]>抄　送：[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]>主　题：Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc



v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}




Hi Loa, Deborah and all, 
 
I agree with Wim's suggestion. The new version (draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05) does not address the comments and concerns raised by the working group and acknowledged by the authors. The limited support came during the early stage of the pool
 before the issue concerning section 6 of the draft was raised. In other words, the limited support may have been influenced by the segment routing contents in the document, which authors have agreed to remove. SFC WG was also missed in the initial portion
 of the pool. 
 
Given the circumstances, the only fair next step would be that the authors of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc first address the WG comments and concerns; they can then ask for the WG adoption. This way everyone will have a fair chance to vote on
 the correct contents. 
 
Thanks
 
Regards ... Zafar
 

From: sfc <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]>

Date: Friday, March 30, 2018 at 2:59 PM

To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>

Cc: "[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]>

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


 

Deborah,
 
There seems to be a flaw in the process here. There were major objections to the draft against WG adoption. A new draft was spun, so I would expect a new WG adoption call to happen and get the WG feedback + decide afterwards
 if the draft gets adopted or not. The last part is completely missing. Without such procedure whats the point of having a WG.
 
So, it would at least be fair per IETF principles to do another WG adoption call and see what happens.
 
Cheers,
Wim
 

From:
"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>

Date: Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 22:03

To: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>

Cc: "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]>

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


 

Hi Robert,
 
Looking at the email threads, there was good support for this draft on the list (look at earlier responses) recognizing it as a needed approach when the NSH was not supported.
 The authors have added sentences to further clarify this does not replace the benefits of NSH, it is not “fully redundant”. Everyone will have different approaches for migration depending on their networks and probably large operators will need to support
 multiple approaches in various parts of their network. Just as different approaches for technology and control are used. As you say, NSH can not be introduced overnight. But SFCs are being used now, and we need to help the industry understand potential migration
 approaches and tradeoffs.
 
This is now a working group document. If you have an alternative MPLS approach, propose it. Often working group documents get respun several times.
 
Thanks,
Deborah
 
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 3:12 PM

To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>

Cc: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>; [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
 


Dear Deborah,


 


Let me perhaps clarify that our comments were not focused on which WG this draft should progress in, but
 if it should progress at all. 


 


Forwarding plane is not something companies can spin overnight and number of us do believe that IETF has
 already made a call as to encoding choice of SFC being NSH header. Introducing  MPLS labels to partially mimic it will likely not help, but disturb the NSH deployments. It will also introduce development conflicts due to both hardware and human resource constrains. 


 


Moreover as it was also pointed out during the discussion and to which no one responded MPLS in the data
 plane has been successfully developed and deployed in SFC application with the help of draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining. Control plane is much easier to extend then to define yet one more data plane. 


 


So what are the real technical reasons to introduce fully redundant data plane encoding for SFC ? And that
 is regardless in which WG that would happen. 


 


Kind regards,


Robert.


 



 

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>
 wrote:




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 iPhone









From: 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)
 15:56



[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