[sfc] Typo in section 5.5 of merged arch document
Anil Gunturu <anil.gunturu@riftio.com> Sun, 07 September 2014 15:12 UTC
Return-Path: <anil.gunturu@riftio.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDC31A040E for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 08:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vTZZBeJYa7M1 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 08:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0065.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 485D01A00D2 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 08:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR01MB019.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.242.190.146) by BLUPR01MB017.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.242.190.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1019.16; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 15:12:33 +0000
Received: from BLUPR01MB019.prod.exchangelabs.com ([10.242.190.146]) by BLUPR01MB019.prod.exchangelabs.com ([10.242.190.146]) with mapi id 15.00.1019.015; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 15:12:33 +0000
From: Anil Gunturu <anil.gunturu@riftio.com>
To: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Typo in section 5.5 of merged arch document
Thread-Index: AQHPyq4mIVlTJs0oo0O+yBPYzac7/w==
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:12:33 +0000
Message-ID: <D031EE1F.58EE%anil.gunturu@riftio.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [98.229.127.217]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0327618309
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009017)(199003)(189002)(46102001)(229853001)(110136001)(85306004)(92726001)(80022001)(19580395003)(107046002)(50986999)(99396002)(106356001)(20776003)(105586002)(79102001)(81542001)(107886001)(101416001)(106116001)(2351001)(15975445006)(86362001)(76482001)(16236675004)(85852003)(74662001)(77982001)(54356999)(2501002)(92566001)(83322001)(83072002)(19617315012)(21056001)(2656002)(4396001)(31966008)(95666004)(36756003)(66066001)(64706001)(74502001)(97736003)(81342001)(90102001)(87936001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR01MB017; H:BLUPR01MB019.prod.exchangelabs.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D031EE1F58EEanilguntururiftiocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: riftio.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/2QrnbBvXDh5rsi5fPNPfC9QWhhY
Subject: [sfc] Typo in section 5.5 of merged arch document
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:12:39 -0000
In section 5.5 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-merged-sfc-architecture/?include_text=1, SPF should be SFP to be constant with the terminology. "In the simplest case, where there is only a single function in the SPF (the next hop is either the destination address of the flow or the appropriate next hop to that destination), one could argue that there may be no need for SFC. In the cases where the classifier is separate from the single function or a function at the terminal address may need sub-prefix or per-subscriber metadata, a single SPF exists (the metadata changes but the SPF does not), regardless of the number of potential terminal addresses for the flow. This is the case of the simple load balancer. See Figure 4." -Anil
- [sfc] Typo in section 5.5 of merged arch document Anil Gunturu
- Re: [sfc] Typo in section 5.5 of merged arch docu… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)