Re: [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/

wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn Mon, 06 September 2021 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn>
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 5141E3A1AFC; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 19:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 xEVCrEmJCcWI; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 19:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxde.zte.com.cn (mxde.zte.com.cn [209.9.37.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56DDA3A1AFD; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 19:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-eu.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.35.13.51]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 1F8532CB88F0F8494AC5; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 10:23:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dgapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.35.13.16]) by mse-eu.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1862N9f6046557; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 10:23:09 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (dgapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid1; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 10:23:10 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 10:23:10 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af961357b8ef95d3eef
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202109061023102415546@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB4206155A7BC3C9688D204235D2CE9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: MN2PR13MB4206C91446BA5FBBDA69E233D2FF9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com, MN2PR13MB4206155A7BC3C9688D204235D2CE9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn
To: james.n.guichard@futurewei.com
Cc: james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, sfc@ietf.org, sfc-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-eu.zte.com.cn 1862N9f6046557
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/8DHUVKcB5HzdW-K-gosf6UcCF28>
Subject: Re: [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Sep 2021 02:23:27 -0000

Hi, Jim and Joel,


I support advancing draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh.


One comment for consideration:


Suggest to replace the following figure in“3.  IOAM data fields encapsulation in NSH”


 0 1 2 3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
 |Ver|O|U| TTL | Length |U|U|U|U|MD Type| NP = TBD_IOAM | |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ N
 | Service Path Identifier | Service Index | S
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ H
 | ... | |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
with


 0 1 2 3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
 |Ver|O|U| TTL | Length |U|U|U|U|MD Type| NP = TBD_IOAM | |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ N
 | Service Path Identifier | Service Index | S
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ H
 ~ Context Header(s) ~ |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+




Best Regards,


Yuehua Wei


M: +86 13851460269 E: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn



原始邮件



发件人:JamesGuichard
收件人:James Guichard;sfc@ietf.org;
抄送人:sfc-chairs@ietf.org;
日 期 :2021年09月03日 02:03
主 题 :Re: [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/


_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
sfc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

 

Dear WG:


 


The chairs have extended the WGLC for a further 2 weeks due to the lack of feedback from the WG on the original WGLC.


 


Please read the document and provide comments to the SFC WG mailing list no later than September 17th 2021. Note that this document is a normative reference for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit that is currently in AD review and we would therefore like to conclude this WGLC so that its dependent documents can further progress.


 


Thanks!


 


Jim & Joel


 



From: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> 
 Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 8:32 AM
 To: sfc@ietf.org
 Cc: sfc-chairs@ietf.org
 Subject: WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/




 


Dear WG:


 


This email starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh [1].


 


Please read this document if you haven’t read the most recent version and send your comments to the SFC WG list no later than September 1st 2021.


 


If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.


 


Lastly, if you are an author or contributor please response to indicate whether you know of any undisclosed IPR related to this document.


 


Thanks!


 


Jim & Joel


 


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/