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

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Wed, 05 December 2018 19:24 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 67C3C130DF1 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:24:16 -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 QNKbdBHpv4W5 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:24:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-f49.google.com (mail-vs1-f49.google.com [209.85.217.49]) (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 58DAC1288EB for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:24:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-f49.google.com with SMTP id n10so3976171vso.13 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:24:14 -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=UNkzzhxm0wpNtg5k9bSB0tpLyFYdzTBmkmvidFp31LM=; b=d+EdIDPyozTMnxB2pGf5OQPOmXcE/5S8lKtV5UXLmhpFuh2oQg1ig1Gfd7y8BlgY1m M/F3tqbD6Lxf7fPZUWAPB0o4w8qq3vq+9vIH1fqR7k15ZhDR0inKISCNJ9lPj3tMhSqb GVls1T2Wlo5zI34bFeXzFgUXYqDNiJlM8DLYiXfSf7UYcUkM0odVsk/S3qhFjENcBXSr mK7IvRyK2B/m6p8gH7zMv7TTCjD/YO0Icw27ijMzHwaQhaXEUtsnIM1LWYwXKRFS7bfn rBJJXn6nKZr1CHsTxlWO3+HQW5KYMOfPVHXtWHTmykO+4S2rlLZJjo+JT11k4p3T89n6 JymA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZM66RdAxXHiJ8DiZqfdydusvialLqBQzCU1Dhyy9qss7ZeK4lt kuWMBlHyf8pxDK5Ld29csM0A9p7Rr5VKLUz0g8PexVzr
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VfrzgXsX9xQy+LZ6qktqDA3dpBojRPPP1ayXvByEI7pMr8qjGEOh58viJlubzFEh7jx9dtKyM/vapWaBl6wkw=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:7993:: with SMTP id u141mr11554204vsc.119.1544037853183; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:24:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA=duU3jt+cf3beJmwfAZQVWDGvCV1wmkQpUjxUqrzKkJVW_og@mail.gmail.com> <b6cc364b-6b03-d222-7320-ecabc1735ef5@pi.nu> <CA+-tSzyt8FG1JDOG0tkfySej3nwxA98T2=v+5LUUL0ZaAaD1AA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU1wvhj8xbOctsTyTStJnSx695VOT8jOHPvmsCDm8H6_MQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1wvhj8xbOctsTyTStJnSx695VOT8jOHPvmsCDm8H6_MQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:23:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzyY8avK7iWP-5fSV1wn+TrMBWxxS7-vNwfCOrvGzMPDQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c244b3057c4b53f7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/YJtb6NBErIFheB08kGK2YrmOU4s>
Subject: Re: [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 19:24:16 -0000

Hi Andy,

Yes, I agree my comment wasn't complete.  Perhaps this is better:
"using MPLS as a replacement for NSH (with some loss of functionality) is
described elsewhere [x]."

Also for the second comment, this may be better.

"as a part of normal processing, the SFF Label becomes

the top label in the stack."


Thanks,
Anoop

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anoop,
>
> Thanks, I'll discuss these suggestions with my co-authors. Also, now that
> we've requested WG LC, Loa may want to treat this as a last call comment.
>
> Your first comment isn't quite correct, since draft-ietf-mpls-sfc only
> replaces some of the functions of the NSH. For example, there's no
> packet-by-packet metadata.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:57 PM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>