[sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-farrel-sfc-convent-06: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 12 March 2018 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietf.org
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7AC81200C1; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-farrel-sfc-convent@ietf.org, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, sfc-chairs@ietf.org, tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com, sfc@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.75.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152088918480.10885.12961544534860296446.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:13:04 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/C12M4UWMo78rIyplREF-UOuNYBM>
Subject: [sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-farrel-sfc-convent-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 12 Mar 2018 21:13:05 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-farrel-sfc-convent-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-sfc-convent/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my discuss by adding a new section on congestion
management! I was still hoping to see more concrete guidance e.g. simlar to
what RFC8085 recommends: "... not sending on average more than one UDP datagram
per RTT to a destination". However, this might not be suitable for all sfc use
cases and therefore the high level guidance as now provided might be sufficient
as well.

-----
Old comment
------
I think this document should update RFC8300 as it does not only register an new
protocol but also changes some of the process for this specific case.