Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

+1,

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of "徐小虎(义先)" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "徐小虎(义先)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, April 9, 2018 at 6:23 AM
To: mpls <[e-mail]>, "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [sfc] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc

I fully agree that the WG adoption poll should be started after the issues have been addressed.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore) <[e-mail]>
2018年4月9日(星期一) 17:55
"Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>; draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Re: [mpls] [sfc] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc

I agree with Wim. We have had a similar situation with a BIER draft WG adoption and the outcome is simple: work to resolve issues so a document has details and broader support.

Bending the process that kept IETF producing quality for years creates a dangerous precedent. A WG draft adoption call is not a place for that.

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 9, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Loa, the part where I disagree is the rough consensus since you see equal number of people for/against. I don’t call this rough consensus.
>
>  On 09/04/2018, 09:46, "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>    Wim, et.al.,
>
>    There are a number of things that could be discussed in this context.
>    We might view the IETF process slightly different.
>
>    The IETF allow for "rough consensus". Meaning that there mihgt be
>    some wg members that are "in the rough", i.e. not supporting the
>    decisions taken by the part of the working group forming the "rough
>    consensus" group.
>
>    Being in the rough is sometimes hard, the best way forward is often to
>    accept the decision and try to constructively contribute to e.g.
>    progressing a document.
>
>    You say that "none of the issues raised have been addressed", the
>    validity of the statement depends on what you mean by addressed.
>
>    "Addressed" is normally a language that we use when requesting
>    publication of a document. "Addressed" is more or less synonymous
>    with "solved".
>
>    In the context of working group adoption poll "addressed" in this
>    meaning is not necessary. "Addressed" in this context should mean
>    "recognized" and that all parties are willing to discuss the issues.
>
>    There are a few criteria for accepting a document as a working group
>    document
>
>    - the document is a good enough starting point
>    - enough support (rough consensus) in the working group to adopt
>       the document
>    - there are enough people in the wg that are willing to work on
>       the document
>    - any issues that are recognized in the poll, is deemed to be possible
>       to during the working group process
>
>    All these three criteria are met. Especially for the third criteria
>    the wg chair believe that it is easier to resolve the issues if the
>    working group holds the revision control and make consensus calls
>    (explicit or implicit) on these issues or other text changes to the
>    document.
>
>    With this I hope we can can put this process discussion to the side
>    and instead focus on the technical issues.
>
>    /Loa
>    mpls wg co-chair
>
>>    On 2018-04-08 08:03, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
>> Loa, I still don’t see where the consensus was reached. I looked back at the tracker and you see same amount of people for as well as against and none of the issues raised have been addressed, based on the feedback you have seen.
>> So I really question the process here and 2nd you should run another poll on the new draft given the issues were not addressed.
>>
>> On 02/04/2018, 16:42, "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>     Working Group,
>>
>>     I sent this mail some time ago, however I can't see that it
>>     actually reached it destinations.
>>
>>     /Loa
>>
>>
>>
>>> Working Group, Wim, et.al.,
>>>
>>> We had very good support to adopt already version-04.
>>>
>>> However, after a mail from the author, saying they wanted to make
>>> come changes in the document, we allowed for publication of
>>> version-05.
>>>
>>> This version were adopted as a working group document.
>>>
>>> Please note the the wg chairs has to do the consensus call when
>>> e.g. adopting a document as working group document. We found
>>> that we had a "rough consensus" to adopt the document.
>>>
>>> This decision was taken by the wg chairs, which is fully within
>>> the IETF process.
>>>
>>> That decision is taken, the issues that has been pointed out are
>>> noted. These issues need to be resolved on the mailing list and
>>> rough consensus need to be reached for text changes in the document.
>>>
>>> Actually the members of the working group have much more influence on
>>> a working group document, than on an individual draft.
>>>
>>> It would be far better if we now focused on proposing text changes,
>>> rather than discussing processes.
>>>
>>> /Loa
>>> mpls wg co-chair
>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-30 20:59, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
>>>> Deborah,
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be a flaw in the process here. There were major
>>>> objections to the draft against WG adoption. A new draft was spun, so
>>>> I would expect a new WG adoption call to happen and get the WG
>>>> feedback + decide afterwards if the draft gets adopted or not. The
>>>> last part is completely missing. Without such procedure whats the
>>>> point of having a WG.
>>>>
>>>> So, it would at least be fair per IETF principles to do another WG
>>>> adoption call and see what happens.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Wim
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Date: *Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 22:03
>>>> *To: *Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Cc: *"Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)"
>>>> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "徐小虎
>>>> (义先)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
>>>> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <[e-mail]>,
>>>> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, mpls
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Subject: *RE: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of
>>>> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the email threads, there was good support for this draft on
>>>> the list (look at earlier responses) recognizing it as a needed
>>>> approach when the NSH was not supported. The authors have added
>>>> sentences to further clarify this does not replace the benefits of
>>>> NSH, it is not “fully redundant”. Everyone will have different
>>>> approaches for migration depending on their networks and probably
>>>> large operators will need to support multiple approaches in various
>>>> parts of their network. Just as different approaches for technology
>>>> and control are used. As you say, NSH can not be introduced overnight.
>>>> But SFCs are being used now, and we need to help the industry
>>>> understand potential migration approaches and tradeoffs.
>>>>
>>>> This is now a working group document. If you have an alternative MPLS
>>>> approach, propose it. Often working group documents get respun several
>>>> times.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Deborah
>>>>
>>>> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>>>> *Robert Raszuk
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2018 3:12 PM
>>>> *To:* BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Cc:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]; 徐小虎(义先) <[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]; draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]; mpls <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of
>>>> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
>>>>
>>>> Dear Deborah,
>>>>
>>>> Let me perhaps clarify that our comments were not focused on which WG
>>>> this draft should progress in, but if it should progress at all.
>>>>
>>>> Forwarding plane is not something companies can spin overnight and
>>>> number of us do believe that IETF has already made a call as to
>>>> encoding choice of SFC being NSH header. Introducing  MPLS labels to
>>>> partially mimic it will likely not help, but disturb the NSH
>>>> deployments. It will also introduce development conflicts due to both
>>>> hardware and human resource constrains.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover as it was also pointed out during the discussion and to which
>>>> no one responded MPLS in the data plane has been successfully
>>>> developed and deployed in SFC application with the help of
>>>> draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining. Control plane is much easier to
>>>> extend then to define yet one more data plane.
>>>>
>>>> So what are the real technical reasons to introduce fully redundant
>>>> data plane encoding for SFC ? And that is regardless in which WG that
>>>> would happen.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Robert.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    Hi,
>>>>
>>>>    Both myself (AD for MPLS) and Martin (AD for SFC and SPRING) were
>>>>    consulted on this draft and we agreed for it to progress in MPLS.
>>>>
>>>>    WG adoption allows the document to be a document of the working
>>>>    group vs. the authors. If you have input for the document, provide
>>>>    it on the MPLS list. The document will be coordinated at key
>>>>    transitions with SFC. This is not the first time that documents
>>>>    early in their timelines may seem to overlap in the different
>>>>    groups, and need the authors to collaborate to sort out/merge, as
>>>>    these documents are ultimately products of IETF, and not the
>>>>    individual authors.
>>>>
>>>>    I noted below it is said that this new version does not eliminate
>>>>    the conflict with the other draft’s approach. It is best to say
>>>>    specifically which text is in conflict and do a proposal to align.
>>>>
>>>>    Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>    Deborah
>>>>
>>>>    *From:* sfc
>>>>    [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] *On
>>>>    Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk
>>>>    *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:06 AM
>>>>    *To:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
>>>>    <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>    *Cc:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 徐小虎(义先)
>>>>    <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>>    [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
>>>>
>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>>    [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; mpls
>>>>    <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>    *Subject:* Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of
>>>>    draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
>>>>
>>>>    Hey Wim,
>>>>
>>>>    It is very obvious on what basis this adoption happened ....
>>>>
>>>>    If ADs do not take any serious action here it will progress smooth &
>>>>    direct to RFC.
>>>>
>>>>    I am only a bit puzzled why the WG last call has not started yet on
>>>>    this :/.
>>>>
>>>>    Best,
>>>>
>>>>    R.
>>>>
>>>>    On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia -
>>>>    BE/Antwerp)
>>>>    <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        Similar comment here on what basis do we adopt this. There were
>>>>        serious issues and although a new draft was posted they have not
>>>>        been addressed. On what basis do you adopt this? I thought IETF
>>>>        works on basis of consensus and in my view this was not achieved
>>>>        so far.
>>>>
>>>>         From iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>        *From:*mpls
>>>>        <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf
>>>>        of 徐小虎(义先)
>>>>        <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>        *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:17:04 AM
>>>>        *To:* mpls; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>        *Cc:* draft-farrel-mpls-sfc;
>>>>        [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>>        [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>        *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Working Group adoption of
>>>>        draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
>>>>
>>>>        Hi Loa,
>>>>
>>>>        I don't believe the modification in Section 6 of
>>>>        draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
>>>>
>>>> (https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05.txt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dfarrel-2Dmpls-2Dsfc-2D05.txt&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=ztYp9cmCmsjVMZ_-dGDWFg9kO1Kj7tP9b3VpgMVoJrw&e=>)
>>>>
>>>>        has eliminated the serious conflict with the SR-MPLS-based SFC
>>>>        approach as described in
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining-03<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dxu-2Dmpls-2Dservice-2Dchaining-2D03&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=G-AiwBZi02SAyGhGBxiXhU_BHgQcuYKJlxpyeTYsgz0&e=> (note
>>>>
>>>>        that this draft has been merged into
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-clad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dxu-2Dclad-2Dspring-2Dsr-2Dservice-2Dchaining-2D00&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=Ul-MW_AEUW2CKbWwZ3C0KOPM0gW5dUwxoMFR050i1T0&e=>),
>>>>
>>>>        as had been pointed by many people before.
>>>>
>>>>        Therefore, it seems a little bit unreasonable to hurry the
>>>>        adoption of the current version, IMHO.
>>>>
>>>>        Xiaohu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>            Loa Andersson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>
>>>>            2018年3月28日(星期三) 15:56
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>
>>>>            draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
>>>>
>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>>
>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>>
>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>            [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
>>>>
>>>>            Working Group,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The MPLS working group have decided to adopt draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05 as
>>>>            an MPLS working group document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can the authors please post draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00, without any other
>>>>            than administrative (filename, version and dates) changes.
>>>>
>>>>            /Loa
>>>>            for the MPLS wg chairs
>>>>
>>>>            --
>>>>
>>>>            Loa Andersson                        email:
>>>>            [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>            Senior MPLS Expert
>>>>            Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>>>>
>>>>            _______________________________________________
>>>>            mpls mailing list
>>>>            [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mpls&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=R5fzJWvbB4NSwtL3I3_FvNHHjJJsuKb8Cxf-2gQw6hI&e=>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>        mpls mailing list
>>>>        [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mpls&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=R5fzJWvbB4NSwtL3I3_FvNHHjJJsuKb8Cxf-2gQw6hI&e=>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>     --
>>
>>
>>     Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>     Senior MPLS Expert
>>     Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>>
>>
>
>    --
>
>
>    Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>    Senior MPLS Expert
>    Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls