Re: [sfc] AD review for draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-07
Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> Mon, 07 May 2018 11:59 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.vigoureux@nokia.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 641A8126CBF; Mon, 7 May 2018 04:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com
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 VI6j9koxdczi; Mon, 7 May 2018 04:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-ve1eur01on0132.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.1.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A060120725; Mon, 7 May 2018 04:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=vXgdteO4ZpZKl8alkxS5LXvbqwNR/cBnf3laD+bMiCA=; b=AFZ4J7DdqwOiBWDPecD6XH9gZkeOWhbtRLWH66tsW3q7nyaHMVXA1Z6Lnu+ztmo6aY0uRN3LWhiX30FxREiVJ8ZS6ZDUHOQ3aGlBDOXE3mDNLdTdidQB5lrI6U39RmTesxTjD4JsnW7qp3Xmg4CsNGh7rdfvK6j4DiEdyQCtDp0=
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=martin.vigoureux@nokia.com;
Received: from [192.168.1.21] (86.246.66.63) by HE1PR0701MB2138.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:2b::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.755.10; Mon, 7 May 2018 11:59:06 +0000
To: Dave Dolson <ddolson@acm.org>, draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical@ietf.org
Cc: sarikaya@ieee.org, "sfc-chairs@ietf.org" <sfc-chairs@ietf.org>, sfc@ietf.org
References: <49f64a48-cd4c-db01-7741-66f6c613c77d@nokia.com> <31459972-303b-004d-2b8d-2138916876d3@golden.net>
From: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <7b2b9626-aa4a-b903-b545-db4b2a18af66@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 13:56:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <31459972-303b-004d-2b8d-2138916876d3@golden.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [86.246.66.63]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DB6PR0802CA0032.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:4:a3::18) To HE1PR0701MB2138.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:2b::11)
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-HT: Tenant
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(8989080)(5600026)(48565401081)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990040)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2138;
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; HE1PR0701MB2138; 3:otmbFUmN8QBA1T++Lm0oGUOfIMBwye6DBQgNH3LdgpQHalPf2kkyNvvEh76o/STr+Mk1hyLC33QVRRMDAv9uDmwkuXngpmLX0d4jSdzDFtsiRbjyKh3nZmiG/8eD/1FlHAsk0DNo91yrJMf3bLHdD4v+CrEtN4qVjfdmXCzFjKhQVjnTL6RPKxqRwIZChkIreR0ovcIgfSraEvVLYCKaBZ8/k9EkV5jZnorNsIjBgXUALsKLvzX0qBvXWvSau8OR; 25:ywx2gaWvtIm/WveUetkIbKQ6mSkLW9UzwChN+iMBGOjJPwFzJBSaxZr6NR8EgDrSZd5COsD1tg8IU/7iABo/KMDLTXgKTFK3H261jQLBpHSF5gL1Z1Vlpu4Jd92Q6FIRympuUZuckMZhbGv7tizNlFkjhZjwW2TZMHYFHWxzvz9MwMiZS4nxTo9zfgg8MhaUPfD6UjGvHK2wjXVPAtFV8eVScnsBcGx2+FXSETUiu8bd+uXOVLGBSTaN/lFrPmdtxEONZC2MKQCNs09J7piqlTGGl9q/bkFcwvuF1cOfIRukkwPZvP/v/oyV1jluIsmlydshXKyqMH9xTROLWbleZA==; 31:AVKdRPRrD7bOr3X35KYS3gckRHpt3RYHQrpSSsQaUnPDJQx406ehiTgu8SwWxUyFahVij04MQI2tmnrCu7XVshH4xfk2Dz58HugzAufDSsfdPhPYR379mDyHprFiloxJzsBXJK3A4847ulqMVrgW0Zm9221YoS5SqGD8p+OghtQ4vjtT3Kfq2+Ciu7eUiCHolB08G5V5sD7ECNJHGnBjxsoLBbB1trr27x+9arzt/8Q=
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: HE1PR0701MB2138:
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; HE1PR0701MB2138; 20: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; 4:8DZNMEV8eBaQ0Ce1iKImgRXi5uLxaeXQ1Q8Gh/5aAvZNvWuRkI874LqvtCRTLHzRn+b2IgMmn/VNO0AcOlY6W5gArvNZpMCOTD1lqDdveLJu2TO6fSKzZ219lY97Df8dzIfLNZpCIimDIKdpPZzt3VcByxmhqkPdB5KIbHuaHh70E6oQSVHigaPHS6c6weG6dj+jglX3m/4JM/Xc/9uCcUDLvMwvuseFajbO4pOADAEVXrzPu47FVWcurAWCOcuhB8VKyflAzsYSCCHzlCBQ0ip3F+t/dJ4vuBFtx7F53RsQXd+dS63qjZIjKIRIl0Vt
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <HE1PR0701MB2138D3C30159B264C49B337B8C9B0@HE1PR0701MB2138.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:(192374486261705);
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3231254)(11241501184)(806099)(944501410)(52105095)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123560045)(20161123562045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558120)(20161123564045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2138; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2138;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 066517B35B
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6049001)(366004)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(39380400002)(396003)(51444003)(54164003)(189003)(377424004)(199004)(501624003)(2906002)(5660300001)(64126003)(25786009)(345774005)(50466002)(106356001)(53546011)(186003)(117156002)(97736004)(2870700001)(11346002)(105586002)(446003)(81156014)(26005)(31686004)(4326008)(68736007)(6666003)(8936002)(59450400001)(65826007)(3260700006)(476003)(956004)(52146003)(81166006)(2616005)(23676004)(486006)(386003)(52116002)(76176011)(8676002)(44832011)(561944003)(2486003)(316002)(16576012)(31696002)(86362001)(58126008)(65806001)(67846002)(36756003)(478600001)(16526019)(77096007)(6306002)(305945005)(7736002)(53936002)(966005)(6246003)(3846002)(6486002)(47776003)(65956001)(66066001)(229853002)(6116002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2138; H:[192.168.1.21]; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: nokia.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;HE1PR0701MB2138;23:hYN9vnkKQFNc+OIMc1w72o5g3cFhqD30bsMxx2w6tBurZ0Hs8A4qjbgHm9O2vamIzPSBOjkjhOS8juW1a+qV3QSk0pMF/8J06rMccZcj1g69rh0bBZqIFYx+9XWEnQXy0Uq3Hc+r73pyWRmB2U9DfCSv3Vy+t4SKqaVdBX/tCWOqCmsLuRURVqMn++xJ+DFCJ+HMXFt3yFjHOjgtNOxlGH6Rzax5mbF0WXfJIix9aDJ7XtBaxQVNwteL+/tOuZtzbnKxsrtEkWqT2LToJ174eicY1sgWNoL2IonYDD/pzc32wbldQQwR0mhmKdSzM0toAoxnnMGeOubHIldCcPlGE3XMOf5qGrwEjpsqa4coYRFmZ97fuoXh3LLVu0TtA+wgxdsNxJmnbB68NoxTQZmRuVe0OD6xoaKG/8Xs+ueqjEAg3DvZMsxzj93SI0rfdyDdVXTLvr5Vba2KhcE/Kju/2dSuloKGBVFNaPAnH9yHtgkApCi/XYNeHkuedwfbjtMJhkK3YZm2mjNp1PmHugM5Uk911GJrd0l/tDeTCyZV9QLc3Dehns20HbwJd1XVo/jgoR4fthc1Qqef1dyPznL2dh0JbkWcW1f04n5eOYxQ4DTv1IKjDLms9GTqxjZ+D90eVwH0Zl0nAzY0/dpuAzBqQf+uIkcpwk+JnpUpVH9Exd4PMp+S4jSYXDAT7wZzCRvAnvXyRDac6Ye4fgRQT280ibwAhMZwYgVU4Vq/yl47kTLfg5uuni/F3+V3nxyxbnClD+rWpkBiGezVZJb1Gtxcz7pvQ1ZbJycdH1LC8aFPDnBXkFCS3RsC2FZWVMmN7idaXlmm/bHihLAlZlmXn+JPWnLoUgEVO2TGerXmI+LY0BP0NEWMwUGn6vOEJSRJyXGMK1Pi3QB0QnstC3upvQUvXQqkvVQaEznjMw+nPcaGw2sOQB5DKFLyWAtdCuhvs2GVZvE59jaMR/o7/vXKDgJrIRO1k1P4N5Niz6YhQwdCOe8HNFk89mVcBiJlIZIN4opcQ5jL6AsxaAGnJmsrALufIoj2M6HTuwJAvnbCSf4hXX6hHdk8PQwM6W/1eEPZ4CmSwlpeIRjlRetjTism1HMS03TqhbBHQMvcv8jVFS0/ApBl6cPD2eoMALnS8yNqCxcamVzugHwplnwL2yYgJmEIVBbS7PHkR4RunVuZBTMOTNvAhN7JbHeWq9bYHrQdpqfOoyqnflMa/HDZPOiQY67ubt+BgarLRyT1F2cblt3uMPIksopLv4EMnJHfzqKvpg7yn7k6mJyaFdqJBvW7YeHYfNETyF5YtGdk6JMEfeamwOOTX0zAmq3c+eAqkoUbZgdFlgJaVsmlCBmEZw0lyG13d8jawCLSHoViAIk0Ykj03HfAd9YKakUsz0r4m+kVBZKYFa0TI07F6j35DpVaFooNdrF/GNuXFVcUM2AVBe4qmaVCrU4gtoVLsfRDPTZiQplMriGAH8Vla8uUlSZXiorMQjTIeLvMIPw2QAumpIVAWCBJYyr9WQ4XAFfSY15Ir3iDSSQcDuIEsjNVgTv+ERm56M3gIXWpn7WwxZLSoaSaNiBToyzh0mluLivY5lxhNAb7VjQAG+//lRcYanUbsL2z8AZTpKIwNA7Yb1XnHPnDmoRD8vFtzZvZJbY/tNHrZvn3EKCSsANy5ty+0IpT9Q3KRQ==
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: ftcFKMRZ4LwRkbPUCSrLwoft97EtDR/7dSWUnaiqPYcehY2Qe6kubgQA0ZHzjki83b03Wltn4OsOtJfo5++Fb7ZAneFYk3p3azSIt8tR12QPvKPVFncem90RW7qMXcX5XDLt7hHa2JPyNVbPCmyX1fp9nl3FzBDbe4Vl8BO0bdpmBvkH0FrApGRKq7KwdcSFy7IxbOVWOellPi+CRqOwNJwCFcV55hkbbh8khop1a9dDUrlh18o8xuitWFvSY22F
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; HE1PR0701MB2138; 6:oGCyaOJHEt0OWEKaDY2uvD144XfDTQGDDCWyGZd0mcVPjI+ErTYiIHjGLZArmwhLMKRn7q1gTzb3uvE/Tafw5eBb79zmiK8HekjUAP3LPRdxHxj8ioKZzbQkQHVEhBGJmDtBWNxAxqn0zW+FbE9fUoiAuxepiKWeNXHj00S1mdI2NBwgRXNEqt2Cm7/h3vyoCM0utM7olgA0eh6Lj1uBuU7uFi9xRd8fJLlttLGuThkgzJLpNGwe5QlRhOfsToqu/IFufSbTNABcORD4+oD0FzuyMTuMQ/IS0GswtZNIdW5SFB9FrTgq59D8puvkQj2tvkP0e7J6gi2r7fY0abgt+okFa3keIkb+VbAO8hGSi5fSPCd4X3SFiS8l7LwA30GGN7ZCjTsL+gOclPFo4hYuzFBL1Ie0UPfmgnCa8r0OSQ036AahJsy2sHuwNT271axV2H65hA6ekV/seghzmEsrJQ==; 5:W+5ZcnhfbigpzBDM10wCehS23+VxbKnyaeOtYtn+Qap/LUrrBsE+qvrU1MfcqAtSIsiyPpcjmh05Pyljmo9QKW4s92heAoglqsYPx0ziR4J4HB4S1Sel7z5fqhAQ2kPrZctCqqW7fp2EKBmdEWqZbhPpK9vLE1BEIY5mkJeZmFg=; 24:w7IidJsSrQi5OYEO1rK93+NUvV1dJ6NV1BfXI6pA1Vui3r83qy8lsp9T7zmjviEJGMDJxm0TBDb/AX7nrVzlvP2MmGjLa0r+twKaJIoHPwM=
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; HE1PR0701MB2138; 7:3JPzMSbSd+wmDmE/0n8x1kG8b25Fz3sN/jKhl3DbdzksYSJ10wbtUTREayf4r3iPq3sQ3RQqy/W4NYxxAilDW1HbuKxM2ecbfTvne0a65b/BG5oxOW//OxNrcCrluQMwENEBEpLEAUgG3/A5qeG1uj/KbDmaysEhN9AW6BzPSvX1mKuHSpk+AWbnCI17bQauUXx32EpJh1sI9PsIMw4rqPMQRzke0Rg/eV9gS8UMekZrIcGaOKMIY1KZnsp4xWbB
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: b481456e-ff67-4f1e-c84f-08d5b411efd8
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 May 2018 11:59:06.9354 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b481456e-ff67-4f1e-c84f-08d5b411efd8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0701MB2138
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/7Zr8s3iY1N6v3ydRKDUFcpaQJMQ>
Subject: Re: [sfc] AD review for draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-07
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 07 May 2018 11:59:14 -0000
Dave, sorry I missed to reply rapidly and then saw you had updated the draft. I'm fine with progressing the new version. Thanks -m Le 2018-04-22 à 5:23, Dave Dolson a écrit : > Martin, > > Thank you for the careful review. > > My comments below are as an individual contributor. > > As an editor, I welcome feedback from the working group. > > -Dave > > > On 2018-04-10 6:11 AM, Martin Vigoureux wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I have reviewed this document, thanks to all of you for putting it >> together. Please see my comments below. >> >> Thank you >> -m >> >> >> General: >> I am in two minds about this document and maybe because the document >> itself seems to not have clear intent. >> >> It is not clear whether this is simply describing what could be done >> or prescribing what should be done. I take the fact that this is an >> Informational document as leaning towards "description" but there are >> pieces of text which clearly look like prescriptive >> protocol/functional behaviour (although some are not detailed enough >> to allow for an implementation). >> >> I would really appreciate if the objective of this document could be >> clarified so that the reader knows what to expect. > As an original author, my intention was to show a network architecture > that allows SFC to scale. Hence it would be informational and optional. > We could make that explicit in the introduction and abstract. > >> >> Also, I am not advocating for making this a Standard Track document as >> I believe it would require a lot of rework but on the other hand I am >> not sure how much help it provides to the persons that would want to >> use the concept of hierarchy when deploying SFC in a large domain, nor >> to those that would need to implement it before that. You'll find >> specific comments below but that bigger question remains. >> >> Also, the Shepherd write-up does not seem to follow the template. >> Any reason for that? I'd prefer if it was re-written according to the >> template. Thanks. >> >> >> Specific: >> Header: >> please write the submission date in the correct format > Agreed. > >> >> 1. Introduction >> Service Function Chaining (SFC) is a technique for prescribing >> differentiated traffic forwarding policies within an SFC-enabled >> domain. >> I am concerned by the fact that this document seems to give another >> definition to SFC. I'm not saying this is wrong but I'd be much more >> comfortable if it was simply saying: >> >> The SFC architecture is described in detail in [RFC7665], and is not >> repeated here. This document simply uses that architecture. >> >> >> We assume that some Service Function Paths (SFPs) need to be selected >> on the basis of application-specific data visible to the network >> What are the security implications of this assumption? Can we remove >> that? I think SFC has had it's share of security related discussions. > I think that can be changed to > > We assume that > some Service Function Paths (SFPs) need to be selected on the basis > of transport-layer coordinates. > >> >> So instead of considering a single SFC Control Plane ([I-D.ietf- >> sfc-control-plane]) >> I'd prefer not to reference a document which has been abandoned by the WG > I propose leaving the discussion of control plane, and just removing the > document references. > >> >> Decomposing a network into multiple SFC-enabled domains should permit >> end-to-end visibility of SFs and SFPs. >> Is that a wishful outcome or a requirement? > I'm not sure myself what that means. I think it can be removed. >> >> The criteria for decomposing a domain into multiple SFC-enabled >> sub-domains are beyond the scope of this document. These criteria >> are deployment-specific. >> While I understand this statement, it kind of defeats a good part of >> the purpose of the document, doesn't it? > I think the idea is that there are lots of ways one could divide > functions into different sub-domains. We don't want to tell the operator > why they would want to do different things, just explain the tools > available. Like explaining a programming language without trying to > explain all of the programs one could write... > >> >> >> 2. Hierarchical Service Function Chaining (hSFC) >> >> A hierarchy has multiple levels: the top-most level encompasses the >> entire network domain to be managed, and lower levels encompass >> portions of the network. These levels are discussed in the following >> sub-sections. >> Should it always be like that or is that just a way and there could be >> other ways? Can we have more-than-two-levels hierarchies or should >> they all be top-and-lower? > Should it always be like that? Hierarchical is optional, if that's what > you mean. > I think "multiple levels" means more than two are possible. > In a hierarchy the higher levels are more encompassing... I don't think > I understand your concern. > >> >> 2.1. Top Level >> This section describes at length the figure/example but what are the >> take-aways? >> >> Considering the example depicted in Figure 1, a top-level network >> domain includes SFC data plane components distributed over a wide >> area, including: >> >> o Classifiers (CFs), >> o Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) and >> o Sub-domains. >> Is that an illustrative way to partition the components (e.g., CFs and >> SFFs part of the top-level) or is that the recommended way? > There would need to be CFs and SFFs at each level. Maybe I miss your point. > >> >> We expect the system to include a top-level control plane having >> responsibility for configuring forwarding policies and traffic >> classification rules (see for example, [I-D.ietf-sfc-control-plane]). >> again, I'd prefer not to reference this doc. More generally, is that >> needed? I don't think so. > We can remove the reference. > >> >> 2.2. Lower Levels >> Same general comment than 2.1. Also, in this section you largely >> discuss the IBN, which is in fact only introduced after. > The IBN is introduced here, and explained in greater detail in a later > section. > >> >> 3. Internal Boundary Node (IBN) >> This is the core of the proposal, in my opinion, but it comes very >> late in the document. If you don't want to rearchitect the whole >> document you should at least have some text (a sentence at bare >> minimum) early in the document that says something like : >> we introduce the concept of an IBN which acts as the gateway between >> the levels of the hierarchy. We also discuss the options for >> realizing this function. > Thanks. I think we can add this to the introduction. >> >> 3.1.x >> Is there a recommended way of doing IBN Path Configuration out of the >> 5 listed? > We did not take any such conclusion. > >> >> >> 4. Sub-domain Classifier >> Another goal of the hierarchical approach is to simplify the >> mechanisms of scaling in and scaling out SFs. All of the >> complexities of load-balancing among multiple SFs can be handled >> within a sub-domain, under control of the classifier, allowing the >> higher-level domain to be oblivious to the existence of multiple SF >> instances. >> I don't see the simplification here. You hide the complexity to the >> higher level, but it remains in the lower one, doesn't it? > If there are multiple sub-domains, they can each be managed > independently, each dealing with a subset of the complexity. If the > deployment were flat, a single controller would have to manage scaling > of multiple clusters. > So it is simpler in the scope handled by each controller. > >> >> >> 9.1 >> Please remove: >> Generic security considerations related to the control plane are >> discussed in [I-D.ietf-sfc-control-plane]. These considerations >> apply for both high-level and low-level domains. >> > OK >> >> >> Nits: >> s/NSH [RFC8300] or a similar/NSH [RFC8300] or a similar/ > If you are complaining about the extra space, this is a function of the > XML-->TXT rendering. > The XML is "<xref target="RFC8300">NSH</xref> or a similar" > >> >> One path is shown from edge classifier to SFF1 to Sub-domain#1 >> (residing in data-center1) to SFF1 to SFF2 (residing in data-center >> 2) to Sub-domain#2 to SFF2 to network egress. >> Shouldn't this text be taken out of the figure and integrated in the >> body of the doc? > OK >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sfc mailing list >> sfc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc >
- [sfc] AD review for draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-07 Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [sfc] AD review for draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchic… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [sfc] AD review for draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchic… Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] AD review for draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchic… Dave Dolson
- Re: [sfc] AD review for draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchic… Martin Vigoureux