IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] [spring] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

"Francois Clad (fclad)" <fclad@cisco.com> Thu, 08 March 2018 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <fclad@cisco.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 83EB7124BE8; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 02:20:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 6Q8v-MpoUinu; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 02:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B2561205F0; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 02:20:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11966; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520504456; x=1521714056; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=quoF0QUbbaW9vtzf6Rg6pOUHt858K+UFuhPa0kgzZH8=; b=ZMf3HhHRukkcZ0sqV5UWFQ6rUAMsKzodI7hcU/gqp4CBio2mvkV0NVNQ /EZpUsZi38DJQo7KMhR3JUKMs1VrID2yd+pHomTfBD+FdwpDowKF846Ii yRs1Sc4XcbR6dD/VCbKU7t/sZfbUQTHf+LLE8fPBi9q5RMqSAzml1LlKo o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D4AACdDaFa/4oNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJadmZvKAqDRooejXiDGIIyjFaFIYIVChgBCoQzTwIagnAhNBgBAgEBAQEBAQJrJ4UkAgQBARsGSwsQAgEGAjsEAwICAiULFBECBA4FhDVkD41CnW2CJohsghgFhTWCLoFWgWYpgwSDLgEBAwGEdjCCMgSIG5I0CQKGR4ofgWOENIhKiXmHJwIREwGBKwEeOIFScBU6KgGCGIJjgWV3ik+BFwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,440,1515456000"; d="scan'208,217";a="365109492"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Mar 2018 10:20:54 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com (xch-rcd-013.cisco.com [173.37.102.23]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w28AKsTl007872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:20:55 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-014.cisco.com (173.37.102.24) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 04:20:53 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-014.cisco.com ([173.37.102.24]) by XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com ([173.37.102.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 04:20:54 -0600
From: "Francois Clad (fclad)" <fclad@cisco.com>
To: "徐小虎(义先)" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
CC: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <draft-farrel-mpls-sfc@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] [mpls] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
Thread-Index: AQHTtscjhbeMzgLth0qjnFgddm3aFQ==
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 10:20:54 +0000
Message-ID: <FE22665C-98ED-457A-AE11-93B8D8718A0A@cisco.com>
References: <152034533897.28338.3516810951049973930.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <783286e2-e7ef-4a1a-8fe3-3adf6142d92e.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
In-Reply-To: <783286e2-e7ef-4a1a-8fe3-3adf6142d92e.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.195.90]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FE22665C98ED457AAE1193B8D8718A0Aciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/kn2cz36thWn16OGOJ3qWfnd-x3k>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
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: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 10:20:58 -0000

Hi Xiaohu, all,

I agree with the point raised by Xiaohu. The draft-farrel-mpls-sfc is copying ideas described in draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining. Please note that the work in draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining started one year before draft-farrel-mpls-sfc.

At IETF100, three drafts in this area were discussed / presented:
- draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining
- draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
- draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining

There was discussion over the mic on the right home for these drafts among SFC, SPRING and MPLS, but no consensus was reached.

As Xiaohu mentioned, draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining and draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining have later merged as draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining. We have also requested a slot for presenting this draft during the upcoming IETF meeting.

In this context, we believe that asking for WG adoption for one of these drafts is premature.

Thanks,
Francois

On 7 Mar 2018, at 01:13, 徐小虎(义先) <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

As I had pointed out at the last IETF meeting, section 6 of this draft has an serious overlap with https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining-03 that has now been updated by https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining-01 with a merge with draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining.

Hence, I'm very interesting to know the intention of such rewritting of a given mechanism that has been described in another draft. Is there any special nutrition?

Best regards,
Xiaohu
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>>
发送时间：2018年3月6日(星期二) 22:09
收件人：draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <draft-farrel-mpls-sfc@ietf.org<mailto:draft-farrel-mpls-sfc@ietf.org>>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>; mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>>
主　题：[mpls] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"


The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Loa Andersson)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-mpls-sfc/

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email