Re: [sfc] Fw:New Version Notification fordraft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04.txt
<ao.ting@zte.com.cn> Mon, 11 February 2019 06:09 UTC
Return-Path: <ao.ting@zte.com.cn>
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 EE30912894E for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 22:09:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 f2zgfmLbCBBh for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 22:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8126124BAA for <sfc@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 22:09:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse02.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.21]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 6BBB02169109E35626EF; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:09:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by mse02.zte.com.cn id x1B69Aho041680; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:09:10 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from ao.ting@zte.com.cn)
Message-Id: <201902110609.x1B69Aho041680@mse02.zte.com.cn>
Received: from xgxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.30.14.23]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x1B578Yq015946; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:07:08 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from ao.ting@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (xgxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid71; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:07:10 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:07:10 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5c6102fed583ec1b
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
In-Reply-To: <FRXPR01MB013498F3DC3E93804109F978D16E0@FRXPR01MB0134.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
References: 201901030041.x030fHSA068733@mse01.zte.com.cn, FRXPR01MB013498F3DC3E93804109F978D16E0@FRXPR01MB0134.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: ao.ting@zte.com.cn
To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
Cc: sfc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn x1B69Aho041680
X-MSS: AUDITRELEASE@mse02.zte.com.cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/aQ5eByvSOtzrAF2qjc968bgcc6w>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Fw:New Version Notification fordraft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04.txt
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:09:20 -0000
Hi Dirk, I really appreciate your review on these drafts, and your confirmation about them. All the comments on draft-ao-sfc-oam-returned-path-specified-02 and draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04 are acceptable. I will upate the drafts to next version. Best Regards. 敖婷 Ting Ao 原始邮件 发件人:Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de> 收件人:敖婷00071246;sfc@ietf.org <sfc@ietf.org>; 日 期 :2019年02月06日 00:08 主 题 :RE: [sfc] Fw:New Version Notification fordraft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04.txt Dear all, I have read both drafts on extending SFC OAM by adding a reply path TLV for testing SFPs and for checking consistency of SFPs. I believe that for operators such measures are very useful when SFC is deployed in future networks and logical network slices. As both drafts rely on adopted WG draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-01 I also had a look at that one. Comments and nits: P.4: the service SFP1 may be realized through two RSPs, RSP1(SF1--SF3--SF5) and RSP2(SF2--SF4--SF5). => the service SFP1 may be realized through two independent RSPs, RSP1(SF1--SF3--SF5) and RSP2(SF2--SF4--SF6). Since IMO there are further possible RSPs as SF1—SF4--SF5, SF1—SF3—SF6, etc. P.7: BFD => BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) P.8: o Reply via Specified Path (TBA7) => o Reply via Specified Path (TBA8) P.9/p.10: 5.2. SFC Echo Request Reception 5.4. Overlay Echo Reply Reception There is still text missing in both sections Regarding the main drafts in focus here I only have very minor comments (nits) on draft-ao-sfc-oam-returned-path-specified-02: P.2: [RFC7665], For example, => [RFC7665]. For example, P.3: the SFC Reply Path TLV Section 4. => the SFC Reply Path TLV as described in Section 4. P.5: return path is a SFP => return path is an SFP SFP,it is assumed that the last SFF doesn't know the reply path of a SFC => SFP, it is assumed that the last SFF doesn't know the reply path of an SFC And on draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04.txt: P.2: Sometimes, a SF needs to => Sometimes, an SF needs to P.4: following values Section 5.1 => following values further detailed in Section 5.1 as as described in Section=> as is described in Section P.6: list of the SFs are in load balance group => list of the SFs which are in included in a load balance group. P.8/9: TBA1-TBA4, TBA6-TBA8 are requested but no TBA5?! As already said I think the extensions are useful and I see no open gaps. Thanks! Kind regards Dirk From: sfc <sfc-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of ao.ting@zte.com.cn Sent: Mittwoch, 2. Januar 2019 15:42 To: sfc@ietf.org Subject: [sfc] Fw:New Version Notification for draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04.txt Hi all, We have updated a new version for draft draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04 based on the discussion in the mailist. The main change is the COAM Reply message for load balance scenario in section 3.4.2. Any comments are always welcome. We think both draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04) and draft-ao-sfc-oam-returned-path-specified-02(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified-02) are ready. We request for the consideration of the WG adoption. Best Regards. Ting Ao 原始邮件 发件人:internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> 收件人:Gregory Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;敖婷00071246;Kent Leung <kleung@cisco.com>;Zhonghua Chen <18918588897@189.cn>;Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; 日 期 :2018年12月27日 16:26 主 题 :New Version Notification for draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Ting Ao and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency Revision: 04 Title: SFC OAM for path consistency Document date: 2018-12-27 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 11 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency-04 Abstract: Service Function Chain (SFC) defines an ordered set of service functions (SFs) to be applied to packets and/or frames and/or flows selected as a result of classification. SFC Operation, Administration and Maintenance can monitor the continuity of the SFC, i.e., that all elements of the SFC are reachable to each other in the downstream direction. But SFC OAM must support verification that the order of traversing these SFs corresponds to the state defined by the SFC control plane or orchestrator, the metric referred in this document as the path consistency of the SFC. This document defines a new SFC OAM method to support SFC consistency check, i.e. verification that all elements of the given SFC are being traversed in the expected order. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat
- [sfc] Fw:New Version Notification for draft-ao-sf… ao.ting
- Re: [sfc] Fw:New Version Notification for draft-a… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [sfc] Fw:New Version Notification for draft-a… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [sfc] Fw:New Version Notification fordraft-ao… ao.ting
- Re: [sfc] Fw:New Version Notification for draft-a… Greg Mirsky