Re: [sfc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7665 (4974)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 12:31 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
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 9B509129851 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 05:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 YIOLx0iy_GXF for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 05:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32FB2129810 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 05:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3580; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490099465; x=1491309065; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=LPlh6wV+U1r+k3XtSvTV1E9sTtBuTpcVYKNACf8yDGE=; b=Eb6yHZ+MeR6IbwXnHdDFeKtPIFO6MOLUfeBtVjc1ZoNXxA7PQRb1DYGb nBRdirJs5RLAFTCCNNIh2clEQ5v/Wu0UncxAZaStlgV7WxJhEC4ggePxI prZyCEM3cG5kVJPc6O3OpcMBs8bM3U/Pgh2OSFLXvaN+YCdlEKDlR5nKi g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CVAgDnG9FY/4sNJK1EGhkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNRYYEKB4NbihCRPx+IEo0ygg4qhXgCGoJxPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQEBAQIBIxFFBQsCAQgSBgICJgICAh8RFQIOAgQOBYlsAw0IDjGqH4Imh0ENgwQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuFQ4IFCIJigTyBFUaBJxaDBi6CMQWJHRGHfIpqOgGOE4QygXuFKIoKimqIcwEfOBVvWBUYKREBhEUNEIFjdQETiCCBDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,198,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="226001460"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Mar 2017 12:31:04 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (xch-rtp-005.cisco.com [64.101.220.145]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2LCV3i1016359 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:31:04 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:31:03 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:31:03 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
CC: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, James N Guichard <james.n.guichard@huawei.com>, "mphaneendra@gmail.com" <mphaneendra@gmail.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7665 (4974)
Thread-Index: AQHSojyHsWWY1YTYtkGdHTzXuUzu7qGffJeA
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:31:03 +0000
Message-ID: <29F54793-8F6B-450E-8927-C566623EBB09@cisco.com>
References: <20170321121314.1D1F6B816C9@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170321121314.1D1F6B816C9@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.150.49.188]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5706B86FC9976E4396BCC99C07364017@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/WR46k94Vzvs-j4nZ1y_vn2SCZcU>
Subject: Re: [sfc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7665 (4974)
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:31:07 -0000

I do not believe this edit is necessary.

The sentence starts with “A non-exhaustive list”, which sets the tone and context for the enumeration of abstract service functions.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 8:13 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7665,
> "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7665&eid=4974
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Phaneendra Manda <mphaneendra@gmail.com>
> 
> Section: 1.4
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> One or more service functions can be involved in the delivery of
> added-value services.  A non-exhaustive list of abstract service
> functions includes: firewalls, WAN and application acceleration,
> Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), Lawful Intercept (LI), server load
> balancing, NAT44 [RFC3022], NAT64 [RFC6146], NPTv6 [RFC6296],
> HOST_ID injection, HTTP Header Enrichment functions, and TCP
> optimizer.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> One or more service functions can be involved in the delivery of
> added-value services.  A non-exhaustive list of abstract service
> functions includes: firewalls, WAN and application acceleration,
> Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), Lawful Intercept (LI), server load
> balancing, NAT44 [RFC3022], NAT64 [RFC6146], NPTv6 [RFC6296],
> HOST_ID injection, HTTP Header Enrichment functions, TCP
> optimizer, Parental control etc.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Parental control can be added in the non-exhaustive list of abstract service functions. Also this list cannot be fixed, so etc an be added at the end of the list.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7665 (draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture
> Publication Date    : October 2015
> Author(s)           : J. Halpern, Ed., C. Pignataro, Ed.
> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> Source              : Service Function Chaining
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG