[mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-05: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 04 March 2019 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD4E1294FA; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:02:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-sfc@ietf.org, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.92.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <155173336630.5245.15422916059733100748.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 13:02:46 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/mv4J_yCiadYKO60b6SqRk788VuU>
Subject: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 21:02:47 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for a very clear document!

I think that the only NSH functionality not included in this document is the O
bit (OAM packet).  I know that, even in rfc8300, the operation (beyond setting
the bit) is not defined...and that work is still in progress in the SFC WG. 
However, given that this document describes a "logical representation of the
NSH", I think it is necessary to point out why the coverage is not complete. 
In looking through the mail archive, I like the thoughts posted by one of the
authors [1] and would like to see something like that reflected in the document.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/b9Duw-9ShdCrIRyis3TOJWw-_pw


s/(as described in Section 4.1/(as described in Section 4.1)

s/(see [I-D.ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane]/(see

s/TC:  The TC bits have no meaning./TC:  The TC bits have no meaning in this

s/to determine to which SFF or instance of an SF (an SFI) to deliver the
packet./to determine which SFF or instance of an SF (an SFI) to deliver the
packet to.