Re: [sfc] SFC WG re-chartering - initial text for WG review/comment

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Jim and Joel,

This is a very good start of the new charter. I agree with the scope.
There are a few things

- it might be of interest to mention working groups you are supposed
   to cooperate with
- since there is an interest in SFC from people with a background in
   "transport" as it is understood in the ITU-T world, we should make it
   clear(er) that when we mention "transport" we are using the term as
   it is defined in IETF

/Loa
-
On 2017-12-12 04:13, James N Guichard wrote:
> Greetings WG:
> 
> Joel and I have taken an initial stab at new charter text for the SFC 
> WG. Please review and provide comments/suggestions by COB Friday 29^th 
> December (2 weeks).
> 
> Network operators frequently utilize service functions such as packet 
> filtering at firewalls, load-balancing and transactional proxies (for 
> example spam filters) in the delivery of services to end users. Delivery 
> of these types of services is undergoing significant change with the 
> introduction of virtualization, network overlays, and orchestration.
> 
> The SFC Working Group has developed an Architecture [RFC 7665] and a 
> protocol (the Network Service Header [draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-28], in the RFC 
> Editor queue as of this drafting.)
> 
> The focus of the SFC working group moving forward will be on aspects of 
> the architecture and/or protocol that need to be addressed to enable 
> effective deployment and usage of this work.  The SFC working group will 
> now begin addressing those items.  In order to maintain focus, the 
> working group will primarily produce and advance documents on four topics:
> 
> 1) Metadata - we need to define the common type-length-value encoded 
> metadata types with standards track RFCs, and produce informational RFCs 
> to describe common fixed-length (MD-1) metadata usages.
> 
> 2) Security - The completed work does not provide mechanisms for 
> authenticating or protecting (either for integrity or from inspection) 
> metadata.  There are a number of open questions as to what can be 
> effectively provided and how to provide such tools.  These need attention.
> 
> 3) OAM and O&M - In order for operators to use these tools in production 
> networks, they need Operations, Administration, and Maintenance tools, 
> as well as management mechanisms.  This includes YANG models, OAM 
> frameworks, and specific OAM mechanisms to address operational needs.
> 
> 4) Transport Considerations - this will capture the expectations SFC 
> places on transport behavior, including dealing with issues such as 
> congestion indications and responses.
> 
> Specifically, the SFC WG is chartered to deliver the following:
> 
> 1. A standards track base set of MD-2 type codes within the metadata 
> class reserved for IETF usage.
> 
> 2. Related Metadata drafts that require more explanation than is 
> reasonable to include in the base MD-2 draft, including MD-1 
> descriptions and items done once the base draft is complete.
> 
> 3. YANG models for the SFC Components.
> 
> 4. One or more security related standards track and / or informational 
> RFCs.  At least one standards track security mechanism RFC is needed.
> 
> 5. OAM Framework document to provide a common basis for OAM work.  This 
> draft will include guidance on how active, passive, and in-situ OAM are 
> to be supported if at all.
> 
> 6. Specific OAM mechanism documents to provide the tools needed for 
> operational environments.
> 
> 7. Transport Considerations RFC to cover the expectations SFC and NSH 
> place on transport, and the operational constraints transports used by 
> NSH need to meet.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jim & Joel
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]