[sfc] Alvaro Retana's Abstain on draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-09: (with COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 19 June 2018 21:43 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietf.org
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D11E127148; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical@ietf.org, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>, sfc-chairs@ietf.org, sfc@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152944462163.32387.10898454540152524931.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:43:41 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/0VA-onUvdrv81EwVzm8jHtRGcj4>
Subject: [sfc] Alvaro Retana's Abstain on draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:43:42 -0000
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-09: Abstain 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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The hSFC concept is indeed interesting -- thanks for doing the work! Reading through the document, I found myself thinking about its usefulness. The Introduction says that it "focuses on the difficult problem of implementing SFC across a large, geographically dispersed network, potentially comprised of millions of hosts and thousands of network forwarding elements, and which may involve multiple operational teams (with varying functional responsibilities)." However, the content doesn't deal directly with the implementation/operational issues -- and offers instead a list of options around the IBN, with no clear or explicit recommendation. Even though it is not explicitly mentioned anywhere, I think that is the intent of the document. The options themselves include speculation about how things could work; including, for example, state synchronization between IBNs (§4.1.1) without specific proposals...or, my favorite, the nesting of NSH headers (§4.1.4). I note that even though the NSH spec (rfc8300) offers a Next Protocol value of "NSH", and the architecture (rfc7665) is such that "the SFC encapsulation remain transport independent...[and]...any network transport protocol may be used", it may not be possible to add/remove NSH Headers within specific transport encapsulations...but that is not discussed. Again, I think that was the intent. The design of the document (present options, but don't dig deep into any of them) is ok. It would be nicer if the WG would move this work forward by exploring the options, specifying them and having detailed operational considerations related to "the difficult problem of implementing SFC" and how hSFC may help. But I didn't find related work in the datatracker. In the end, I believe that this document is valuable as a discussion piece which may lead to future work...but, in my opinion, it doesn't need to be published as an RFC to serve that purpose...and it could in fact benefit from further analysis and evaluation before eventual publication reflecting *the* hSFC architecture. Given that we're at the IESG Evaluation point in the process, I won't stand in the way of publication and have chosen to ABSTAIN instead.
- Re: [sfc] Alvaro Retana's Abstain on draft-ietf-s… mohamed.boucadair
- [sfc] Alvaro Retana's Abstain on draft-ietf-sfc-h… Alvaro Retana