IETF Logo Mail Archive

[sfc] WG LC on draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 02 June 2022 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0201C14F745 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d79KkjqiMRuY for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1783DC14F738 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4LDZpp6Hz0z6G9K8 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1654195858; bh=3V4i/zOm/fFuWcXz9CJgQquW/W+u/VBTGEAXHvpzIoI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:From; b=TteTNcPJzmO/nNjypC6AXCn2By2RybdHsP9Cx44r24fFuPPF/rnnH4X9HtkDVLgxQ nNfiKqc3qRc+ZniN82mkpuxktN6FqpzHD9zqnqIC/rP6zKZxCJSKL4J8lOTtGjepTE JpomUDK6ey1jtZIjJZZ0SKjtGxO5hyrOcAlIpM9k=
X-Quarantine-ID: <IlEqygjNPpf4>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.23.181] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4LDZpp3VyDz6GmwS for <sfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c26e4142-aa80-6e54-f997-2f81e025076c@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 14:50:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/0jl5T3D1Uf5m8C_9DKD0xTHOikE>
Subject: [sfc] WG LC on draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 18:51:03 -0000

Technically, the draft is still in last call from quite some time ago.

For clarity, and as there have been clarifications in relate 
terminology, the chairs have decided to consider taht we are restarting 
the last call today.

This Working Group Last call will run for 2 weeks (and a day) until CoB 
on June 17, 2022.

Please respond positively or negatively to this call.  Note that if we 
do not get enough responses we will likely be unable to advance the 
document before the WG closes.

When responding, please provide clear motivation either for or against 
publication as an RFC.  Substantive comments are MUCH more helpful than 
"yes" or "no".


Thank you,

Joel and Jim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email