[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.
- [sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-far… Mirja Kühlewind