Re: [Sdn] Poll for RG Adoption - draft-contreras-sdnrg-layered-sdn

Gabriel Lopez <> Fri, 19 February 2016 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36BA1A8AAA for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 03:43:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.206
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qpa7fNXzRDbB for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 03:43:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656E41A8925 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 03:43:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7555A75DB; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:43:40 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by antispam in UMU at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 8uJkms-+2nWS; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:43:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: gabilm) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2EE975D5; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:43:38 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B07B3FC5-F01B-4F73-9474-6F48ADC3581E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Gabriel Lopez <>
In-Reply-To: <65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A8BCB6E36@EX-0-MB2.lancs.local>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:43:36 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A8BCB6E36@EX-0-MB2.lancs.local>
To: "King, Daniel" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Sdn] Poll for RG Adoption - draft-contreras-sdnrg-layered-sdn
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:43:46 -0000


> El 15 feb 2016, a las 14:26, King, Daniel <> escribió:
> Greetings SDN Researchers,
> At IETF 94 we had a request from the authors of "Cooperating Layered Architecture for SDN" to poll the Research Group for adoption of their document:
> o If you missed their presentation at IETF 94 -
> o The current version of the document -
> We would like to open a two-week adoption call the document, but specifically ask that a "support" or "no support" response be substantiated with accompanying comments discussing why the document should be adopted, or indeed not.

The draft describes a SDN layered architecture based on different strata for both service and data transport layers.
Service controllers and Transport controllers need to coexist and collaborate among them. This draft defines the framework for
this collaboration. It is also aligned with the ONF framework.

So I support the adoption of this draft.

Some additional comments:

Section 1.

- "which functionality is supposed to perform traffic forwarding (only)". The "(only)" statement may confuse the
readers. If authors try to make emphasis in a special behaviour here it should be mentioned more clearly, or to add some reference.

Section 3.

- the concept of "external service" has not been introduced

- Paragraphs 5 and 6 are difficult to read due to the (mix)-use of the terms "layers", "blocks", "stratum" and "planes".

- Figure 1:
    - communication API/channel between Transport Stratum and Service Stratum should be labelled.
    - s/Resource Pl./Resource Plane/resource plane (according to the text). Idem for Control Pl. and Mngmt Pl.

- In line with the previous paragraphs, would this sentence "There is a hierarchy in which the Service SDN controller
   requests transport capabilities to the Transport SDN controller." be expressed in a best way as "There is a hierarchy in
   which Service SDN controller(s) request(s) transport capabilities to the Transport SDN controller(s)." ?? (idem about the next sentence)

- "The Service SDN controller acts as a client of the Transport SDN
   controller." From the previous paragraphs it seems more like a peer-to-peer relationship rather than a client-to-server one.

- the concept of "external application" has not been introduced.

-  "This document does assume that SDN techniques can be enabled jointly
   with other distributed means (e.g., IGP)". Please, could you elaborate this statement.

Section 5.

-  "The communication between controllers should be also secure,
   preventing denial of service." It should prevent any kind of secure threat, not only denial of service.

> Kind Regards,
> Dan & Kohei
> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
> sdn mailing list

Gabriel López Millán
Departamento de Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones
University of Murcia
Tel: +34 868888504
Fax: +34 868884151
email: <>