Re: [sfc] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header

Joel, thanks for your clarification.
My argument is SFC control plane is one relevant work, SFC control plane can be centralized or distributed based on section 3.2 of SFC control plane draft.
It doesn't recommend any mechanism since it is just architecture draft.

I can live with this draft moving forward without this reference, but I don't buy your reason given below.

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] 
发送时间: 2019年12月16日 9:27
收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>; sfc@ietf.org
主题: Re: [sfc] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header

I am not confident that I follow your reasoning.   So let me restate 
slightly, and then add some observations and questions.

You appear to be observing that the information as to what serviceID could come from the control plane framework.  Is that what you are getting at?

That draft has not been updated in more than 3 years, expired for 2.5 years.  It does not appear that the working group has any interest in the document.  When it was last considered, there was a lot of controversey about the draft, and if I recall correctly no agreement that it was structured the right way.

Our approach to metadata, and for that matter to SPFID selection, and to the forwarding entries in SFF, has been that the information can come from a number of places and we do not tie the definitions to the mechanisms used to provide them.

As such, I do not understand what form of reference would be appropriate, even if the cited document were an active WG document.

Yours,
Joel

On 12/15/2019 8:07 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
> I believe this draft is under umbrella of draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-08, suggest to add reference to it.
> In addition, It will be great to add usage example of new defined subscriber identifier and Performance Policy Identifier.
> Besides these, I think this draft is ready to go.
> 
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Joel M. Halpern
> 发送时间: 2019年12月11日 21:52
> 收件人: sfc@ietf.org
> 主题: [sfc] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for 
> draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header
> 
> Starting WG Last call.  See comment below for description.
> Thank you,
> Joel
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header
> Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:27:51 -0800 (PST)
> Resent-From: alias-bounces@ietf.org
> Resent-To: james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, jmh@joelhalpern.com, 
> tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:27:51 -0800
> From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
> To: draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header@ietf.org, sfc-chairs@ietf.org
> 
> 
> The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header has been changed 
> to "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel Halpern:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header/
> 
> Comment:
> This starts the working group last call for this document.  It has 
> been discussed on the email list.  We need to see responses.  If you 
> see issues with publishing this document as an RFC, please speak up now.  And please be
> clear about what your concerns are.   At the same time, if you think that
> publishing this as an RFC is a good thing for the working group, 
> please speak up.
> 
> As a note for those who may be concerned about the relationship to the 
> TLV draft, the chairs have noticed that problem, and we believe we 
> have gotten that document unstuck.
> 
> Given the propensity for people to disappear at this time of year, I 
> am giving the document a 4 week last call.
> 
> Thank you for your time and attention, Joel (& Jim)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
> 