[mpls] What to do with draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 04 April 2018 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 D79A8127978 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 sVzeaqwPbJJB for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2F8012AAB6 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w34H5BOh011225 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:05:12 +0100
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0CC22075 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:05:11 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4E972206D for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:05:11 +0100 (BST)
Received: from 950129200 ([193.57.121.62]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w34H5ANT015121 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:05:11 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: mpls@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 18:05:11 +0100
Message-ID: <031101d3cc37$18a57300$49f05900$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AdPMNxNSlaKaJm1rT/qQVoYwfYC8IA==
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-23764.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--23.733-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--23.733-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-23764.001
X-TMASE-Result: 10--23.733500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 8bRr/LY08A6F1SyzhV53s/OHbIp2eXtYmX+W7bzPOQF0QbvL4PujkEkg +8rzTcXN62nfmtC6YloJ7VKkyipknzyuMJ2fD2rRoxWB033D5MJezmeoa8MJ8zCmUYns3FLTA4e V6z+cHCdYmpQX8IYTVC55J/f/mEkPuaiXByoTdI9oMLOoNHsM9hlgDfyCPcHELBJYfEYh1PV5L2 Bpc0g4FU1i8No7236czwxMSIzZLYaC0nWR/OzqYJVRzPxemJL0cmsHQK7cMOdGMe+tDjQ3FhiHs XS+kQQRfnDkVKuOgNVaQTBv8OoS93hDV7hPRWfHjSOVeRIcbV55y+Nu7/EOOgv/nTOPQovsH2Q4 en0OmVN6IzalfQIoB1EfiOWw7EJh1nlOwfTvSLX87vS8PQu3wLNI9rnyO+FWNuhj3Bouii+tZXA 67sG7WzoZeeM60efy5BaQuGxsXn8wewIQHrGHI6lEpFyUzdfzC4rWEiK1Igeyd65qZFFPkzpbfd TAcNXm4vM1YF6AJbZcLc3sLtjOt+03P1hii2skseWplitmp0j6C0ePs7A07YVH0dq7wY7uA/3R8 k/14e0=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/intzE7kT_7txTDnqnzEZZfqn4sw>
Subject: [mpls] What to do with draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 04 Apr 2018 17:05:22 -0000

WG,

Would it help if we added use cases to this document? Usually, the IESG frowns
on use cases, but it sounds as though this document needs some further
explanation.

Of course, not everyone likes every proposed use case. Some will say, "I don't
need that." Others will say, "I have another way, or I prefer a different way,
of achieving that."

Adding such a section would allow the inclusion of some text saying (something
like) "A use case is to achieve SFC in an MPLS-SR network, but that is discussed
in draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining."


Additionally, I have been wondering how to handle the discussion of using this
function in a brownfield network. Normally we don't tell people in our specs how
to build their boxes - we make protocol specs not design documents. However, if
in addition to how I would build this, I can see a (somewhat clunky) method to
achieve this function in existing platforms, would it be worth adding that?

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-
> drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: 04 April 2018 10:28
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG of the IETF.
> 
>         Title           : An MPLS-Based Forwarding Plane for Service Function
Chaining
>         Authors         : Adrian Farrel
>                           Stewart Bryant
>                           John Drake
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 24
> 	Date            : 2018-03-28
> 
> Abstract:
>    Service Function Chaining (SFC) is the process of directing packets
>    through a network so that they can be acted on by an ordered set of
>    abstract service functions before being delivered to the intended
>    destination.  An architecture for SFC is defined in RFC7665.
> 
>    The Network Service Header (NSH) can be inserted into packets to
>    steer them along a specific path to realize a Service Function Chain.
> 
>    Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a widely deployed forwarding
>    technology that uses labels placed in a packet in a label stack to
>    identify the forwarding actions to be taken at each hop through a
>    network.  Actions may include swapping or popping the labels as well,
>    as using the labels to determine the next hop for forwarding the
>    packet.  Labels may also be used to establish the context under which
>    the packet is forwarded.
> 
>    This document describes how Service Function Chaining can be achieved
>    in an MPLS network by means of a logical representation of the NSH in
>    an MPLS label stack.  It does not deprecate or replace the NSH, but
>    acknowledges that there may be a need for an interim deployment of
>    SFC functionality in brownfield networks.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sfc/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls