Re: [sfc] Progression of use case documents in the SFC WG

I agree with the chair's proposal as well.

Surendra.

On 3/27/14 7:59 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

>This looks like a good idea to me.
>One wide net, and then specific narrow nets where appropriate.
>Liaising to appropriate SDOs or fora with the narrow documents is also
>very helpful.
>
>Yours,
>Joel
>
>On 3/26/14, 1:54 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) wrote:
>> WG:
>>
>> In a message back in January, we (the chairs) proposed that the SFC WG
>> handle the topic of use case documents as follows:
>>
>>     1) Have the WG develop one use case document that documents a small
>>     number of representative use cases.  The document presented by
>>     Hongyu Li at the Vancouver BOF could serve for this purpose
>>     
>>(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-service-chaining-use-cases).
>>
>>
>>     3) For additional use cases not covered in 1) above, allow for a
>>     small number of documents that are applicable to specific
>>     environments (e.g.  mobility, data center, broadband, and so forth.)
>>     These documents would provide more detailed information and
>>     applicability of SFC to these specific environments, and would need
>>     to go beyond what is covered in the general use case document (1).
>>     Note that it is not the intention to have every potential use case
>>     documented.
>>
>>
>> Since then, and based on the presentations/discussion in London, it
>> appears that we have a number of documents that warrant being developed
>> as standalone documents. Specifically:
>>
>> 1) A use case document on mobility, e.g.,
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haeffner-sfc-use-case-mobility/
>>
>> 2) A use case document on Data Centers, e.g.,
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-sfc-dc-use-cases/
>>
>> 3) Possibly a use case document on Broadband scenarios. However, use
>> cases from a broadband perspective are being developed in the BBF (see
>> the liaison statement at https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1304/). We
>> also have
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-meng-sfc-broadband-usecases/.  It
>> does not seem appropriate to adopt a WG document on the topic of
>> broadband (at least at this time) without clarifying the relationship
>> between draft-meng-sfc-broadband-usecases and the BBF work. In addition,
>> we would need to understand why two efforts ‹ one in BBF and one in the
>> IETF -- on the same topic would be appropriate. Hence, at the present
>> time, we do not intend to adopt a WG document on broadband scenarios,
>> and expect to receive primary guidance on this topic from the BBF.
>>
>> That leaves: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-sfc-use-cases/, a
>> more general document. But that document includes text on three topics
>> that would be covered in more detail elsewhere (broadband, mobile, and
>> DC). While this document could contain pointers to the other documents,
>> that leaves the document with very little standalone content -- raising
>> the question of what should be done with it, or what content it could
>> incorporate in order to be worthwhile as a standalone document.
>>
>> Thus, the chairs recommendation at this time is:
>>
>> 1) Call for WG adoption of draft-haeffner-sfc-use-case-mobility-00.txt
>> and draft-kumar-sfc-dc-use-cases-00.txt as WG documents (target:
>> informational).
>>
>> 2) Defer action on draft-liu-service-chaining-use-cases
>> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-service-chaining-use-cases>
>> and draft-meng-sfc-broadband-usecases
>> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-meng-sfc-broadband-usecases/> per
>> the above discussion.
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Jim & Thomas
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sfc mailing list
>> sfc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>sfc mailing list
>sfc@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc