[Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Present encapsulation considerations in SFC?

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net> Tue, 07 July 2015 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@sonic.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DE11A1A87; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 RRFcJfnrsnTP; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (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 D73811A1A8B; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.26] ([78.197.168.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t67DVbPQ010028 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:31:39 -0700
To: sfc-chairs@ietf.org
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <559BD4B2.60305@sonic.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:31:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVYeBYiuu8GSSkPi1CcLbG24sdpUreP7nOB9U+zHl0J0D8hTi0mb2yAzkeXiUJG2Yv7tpFeTVuF2/X+MY6G8A5SW
X-Sonic-ID: C;tNJ0fqwk5RGzqjDDQUxNRQ== M;bisvf6wk5RGzqjDDQUxNRQ==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/toTJ-tXmWmfKB1LHSjmX-bjUzBo>
Cc: "rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org" <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Present encapsulation considerations in SFC?
X-BeenThere: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Design Team on Encapsulation Considerations discussion list <rtg-dt-encap-considerations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dt-encap-considerations>, <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations>, <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:31:43 -0000

Hello,

Alia charted this design team to come up with some considerations since 
NVO3, SFC, and BIER are defining new encaps.
The result is a draft, which is now a WG draft in RTGWG: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap/

That has resulted in some discussions in NVO3 and BIER, but SFC has been 
notably quiet.

Would it make sense to present the content of the draft in SFC to 
stimulate some discussion and thinking? (and possible feedback to the 
draft and RTGWG)

Regards,
     Erik