Re: [sfc] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I agree Loa, we do not seem to need an umbrella document.
If the working group decides to engage in control plane work, then we 
might want to re-examine whether or not a framework document would be 
helpful.

Yours,
Joel

On 12/20/2019 12:09 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Joel,
> 
> A naive question inline.
> 
> On 16/12/2019 09:26, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> I am not confident that I follow your reasoning.   So let me restate 
>> slightly, and then add some observations and questions.
>>
>> You appear to be observing that the information as to what serviceID 
>> could come from the control plane framework.  Is that what you are 
>> getting at?
>>
>> That draft has not been updated in more than 3 years, expired for 2.5 
> 
> Is what you say that draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane has not been changed
> for 3 years and expired for 2.5?
> 
> Sometimes umbrella documents is useful, in this case we seems to be
> doing good without one.
> 
> /Loa
>> years.  It does not appear that the working group has any interest in 
>> the document.  When it was last considered, there was a lot of 
>> controversey about the draft, and if I recall correctly no agreement 
>> that it was structured the right way.
>>
>> Our approach to metadata, and for that matter to SPFID selection, and 
>> to the forwarding entries in SFF, has been that the information can 
>> come from a number of places and we do not tie the definitions to the 
>> mechanisms used to provide them.
>>
>> As such, I do not understand what form of reference would be 
>> appropriate, even if the cited document were an active WG document.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 12/15/2019 8:07 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
>>> I believe this draft is under umbrella of 
>>> draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-08, suggest to add reference to it.
>>> In addition, It will be great to add usage example of new defined 
>>> subscriber identifier and Performance Policy Identifier.
>>> Besides these, I think this draft is ready to go.
>>>
>>> -Qin
>>> -----邮件原件-----
>>> 发件人: sfc [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Joel M. Halpern
>>> 发送时间: 2019年12月11日 21:52
>>> 收件人: [e-mail]
>>> 主题: [sfc] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for 
>>> draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header
>>>
>>> Starting WG Last call.  See comment below for description.
>>> Thank you,
>>> Joel
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header
>>> Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:27:51 -0800 (PST)
>>> Resent-From: [e-mail]
>>> Resent-To: [e-mail], [e-mail], 
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:27:51 -0800
>>> From: IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]>
>>> To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header has been changed 
>>> to "In
>>> WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel Halpern:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header/
>>>
>>> Comment:
>>> This starts the working group last call for this document.  It has been
>>> discussed on the email list.  We need to see responses.  If you see 
>>> issues
>>> with publishing this document as an RFC, please speak up now.  And 
>>> please be
>>> clear about what your concerns are.   At the same time, if you think 
>>> that
>>> publishing this as an RFC is a good thing for the working group, please
>>> speak
>>> up.
>>>
>>> As a note for those who may be concerned about the relationship to 
>>> the TLV
>>> draft, the chairs have noticed that problem, and we believe we have 
>>> gotten
>>> that document unstuck.
>>>
>>> Given the propensity for people to disappear at this time of year, I am
>>> giving the document a 4 week last call.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time and attention,
>>> Joel (& Jim)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sfc mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sfc mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>