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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

If you exclude co-authors it is not even equal ;)

Best,
R.

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 11:44 Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Loa, the part where I disagree is the rough consensus since you see equal
> number of people for/against. I don’t call this rough consensus.
>
> On 09/04/2018, 09:46, "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Wim, et.al.,
>
>     There are a number of things that could be discussed in this context.
>     We might view the IETF process slightly different.
>
>     The IETF allow for "rough consensus". Meaning that there mihgt be
>     some wg members that are "in the rough", i.e. not supporting the
>     decisions taken by the part of the working group forming the "rough
>     consensus" group.
>
>     Being in the rough is sometimes hard, the best way forward is often to
>     accept the decision and try to constructively contribute to e.g.
>     progressing a document.
>
>     You say that "none of the issues raised have been addressed", the
>     validity of the statement depends on what you mean by addressed.
>
>     "Addressed" is normally a language that we use when requesting
>     publication of a document. "Addressed" is more or less synonymous
>     with "solved".
>
>     In the context of working group adoption poll "addressed" in this
>     meaning is not necessary. "Addressed" in this context should mean
>     "recognized" and that all parties are willing to discuss the issues.
>
>     There are a few criteria for accepting a document as a working group
>     document
>
>     - the document is a good enough starting point
>     - enough support (rough consensus) in the working group to adopt
>        the document
>     - there are enough people in the wg that are willing to work on
>        the document
>     - any issues that are recognized in the poll, is deemed to be possible
>        to during the working group process
>
>     All these three criteria are met. Especially for the third criteria
>     the wg chair believe that it is easier to resolve the issues if the
>     working group holds the revision control and make consensus calls
>     (explicit or implicit) on these issues or other text changes to the
>     document.
>
>     With this I hope we can can put this process discussion to the side
>     and instead focus on the technical issues.
>
>     /Loa
>     mpls wg co-chair
>
>     On 2018-04-08 08:03, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
>     > Loa, I still don’t see where the consensus was reached. I looked
> back at the tracker and you see same amount of people for as well as
> against and none of the issues raised have been addressed, based on the
> feedback you have seen.
>     > So I really question the process here and 2nd you should run another
> poll on the new draft given the issues were not addressed.
>     >
>     > On 02/04/2018, 16:42, "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >
>     >      Working Group,
>     >
>     >      I sent this mail some time ago, however I can't see that it
>     >      actually reached it destinations.
>     >
>     >      /Loa
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >      > Working Group, Wim, et.al.,
>     >      >
>     >      > We had very good support to adopt already version-04.
>     >      >
>     >      > However, after a mail from the author, saying they wanted to
> make
>     >      > come changes in the document, we allowed for publication of
>     >      > version-05.
>     >      >
>     >      > This version were adopted as a working group document.
>     >      >
>     >      > Please note the the wg chairs has to do the consensus call
> when
>     >      > e.g. adopting a document as working group document. We found
>     >      > that we had a "rough consensus" to adopt the document.
>     >      >
>     >      > This decision was taken by the wg chairs, which is fully
> within
>     >      > the IETF process.
>     >      >
>     >      > That decision is taken, the issues that has been pointed out
> are
>     >      > noted. These issues need to be resolved on the mailing list
> and
>     >      > rough consensus need to be reached for text changes in the
> document.
>     >      >
>     >      > Actually the members of the working group have much more
> influence on
>     >      > a working group document, than on an individual draft.
>     >      >
>     >      > It would be far better if we now focused on proposing text
> changes,
>     >      > rather than discussing processes.
>     >      >
>     >      > /Loa
>     >      > mpls wg co-chair
>     >      >
>     >      > On 2018-03-30 20:59, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> wrote:
>     >      >> 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
> *On
>     >      >>     Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk
>     >      >>     *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:06 AM
>     >      >>     *To:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
>     >      >>     <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
>     >      >>     *Cc:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 徐小虎(义先)
>     >      >>     <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>;
>     >      >>     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
>     >      >>
>     >      >> <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>;
>     >      >>     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; mpls
>     >      >>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:
> [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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> on behalf
>     >      >>         of 徐小虎(义先)
>     >      >>         <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
>     >      >>         *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:17:04 AM
>     >      >>         *To:* mpls; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >      >>         *Cc:* draft-farrel-mpls-sfc;
>     >      >>         [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     >      >>         [e-mail]<mailto:[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<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dfarrel-2Dmpls-2Dsfc-2D05.txt&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=ztYp9cmCmsjVMZ_-dGDWFg9kO1Kj7tP9b3VpgMVoJrw&e=
> >)
>     >      >>
>     >      >>         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<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dxu-2Dmpls-2Dservice-2Dchaining-2D03&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=G-AiwBZi02SAyGhGBxiXhU_BHgQcuYKJlxpyeTYsgz0&e=>
> (note
>     >      >>
>     >      >>         that this draft has been merged into
>     >      >>
>     >      >>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-clad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dxu-2Dclad-2Dspring-2Dsr-2Dservice-2Dchaining-2D00&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=Ul-MW_AEUW2CKbWwZ3C0KOPM0gW5dUwxoMFR050i1T0&e=
> >),
>     >      >>
>     >      >>         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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >      >>
>     >      >>             2018年3月28日(星期三) 15:56
>     >      >>
>     >      >>
>     >      >> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
>     >      >>
>     >      >>             draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
>     >      >>
>     >      >> <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>;
>     >      >>
>     >      >> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>;
>     >      >>
>     >      >> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><
> [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >      >>             Senior MPLS Expert
>     >      >>             Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46
> 739 81 21 64
>     >      >>
>     >      >>             _______________________________________________
>     >      >>             mpls mailing list
>     >      >>             [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >      >>
>     >      >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mpls&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=R5fzJWvbB4NSwtL3I3_FvNHHjJJsuKb8Cxf-2gQw6hI&e=
> >
>     >      >>
>     >      >>
>     >      >>
>     >      >>         _______________________________________________
>     >      >>         mpls mailing list
>     >      >>         [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >      >>
>     >      >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mpls&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=R5fzJWvbB4NSwtL3I3_FvNHHjJJsuKb8Cxf-2gQw6hI&e=
> >
>     >      >>
>     >      >>
>     >      >>
>     >      >>
>     >      >> _______________________________________________
>     >      >> mpls mailing list
>     >      >> [e-mail]
>     >      >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>     >      >>
>     >      >
>     >
>     >      --
>     >
>     >
>     >      Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>     >      Senior MPLS Expert
>     >      Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>     >
>     >
>
>     --
>
>
>     Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>     Senior MPLS Expert
>     Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>
>
>