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

Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com> Sun, 30 March 2014 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462D81A0785 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 01:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 gIv-Ps-NF74L for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 01:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x235.google.com (mail-qc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535631A0479 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 01:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id e9so7613458qcy.40 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 01:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bo7U9yP0d5dzaKh++f0kNO81+/eof/qKcoWERe25lL8=; b=KapxXCD0JW+bqJ9MTU+605ZGJF7hWfHNhpWCp7NT/P+91hHsCh/YIEzDnvDQSPp+QK QPtGTrjuKXn0pWan0sYyuSwkedICVLVgvE08a2g4iwaciQxgu2+wqOSpORqBUvzOxKjg 9sPQUP/cYo/UczLA7AVMJvEnwHLxI6dZ+3ytwgUVra8LNEO38zEbZ+Dt6XCjA/Wkbf93 0AmV8KASKrifLoI3mfsc+mxhBHgVSdLJ6ukWoDZmYrvwaTqCUMDO4Bnsy/MsOdmAh7WP ZShgTP9rtaL9z3qWZ1dUh20en1O3vgLl7KMmr0H73rFhkB2i131uP2lsqNc1wPR851fQ n6Qw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.58.68 with SMTP id f4mr760618qch.18.1396167858396; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 01:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.111.169 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 01:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CF5B2896.1E7AC%jguichar@cisco.com>
References: <CF588C77.1E5F9%jguichar@cisco.com> <CAProHARwm+vZC0YboprVMM94BCrdKXOR7m0GUA5KTxu08hKJ0w@mail.gmail.com> <53358F53.2030409@joelhalpern.com> <CF5B2896.1E7AC%jguichar@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:24:18 +0800
Message-ID: <CAProHATB=2jLXaQ8Yg+ZPg0w0dvL9XA3DP_QURZp8e5TZhimHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <jguichar@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/bXa8lC556BcYng3LstH732ak_Ks
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Progression of use case documents in the SFC WG
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 08:24:23 -0000

Hi Jim

I do not think ease to liaison is a good reason. Does IETF produce
documents based on the ease to liaison? And one document is even
easier :)

Many thanks,
zhen

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Jim Guichard (jguichar)
<jguichar@cisco.com> wrote:
> Thank you Joel. Yes, this is the approach we plan to take and I see a lot
> of support for that on the list.
>
> On 3/28/14, 11:03 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>
>>One aspect in the chairs proposal that struck me has particularly useful
>>was keeping the use case document for specific partners separate.  That
>>way, it is MUCH easier to liaise with 3GPP or the BBF on the aspects of
>>the use cases that are important to them.
>>
>>Yours,
>>Joel
>>
>>On 3/28/14, 4:34 AM, Zhen Cao wrote:
>>> Dear Chairs,
>>>
>>> I do not know how we come to this conclusion given the below facts
>>> 1) Email discussion on January,
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sfc/current/msg00966.html, with
>>> many supports of moving forward the  document draft-liu-sfc-use-cases.
>>>
>>> 2) London discussion as per
>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-sfc , where
>>> several people voice out that we need one document
>>>
>>> As for draft-liu-sfc-use-cases, I'd say it is not a simple 'general'
>>> use cases write-up, actually it has already merged with one mobility
>>> use case from Med, and it also describe the use cases from the
>>> abstract point of view, i.e. two angles that try to summarize the
>>> existing activities.
>>>
>>> Technically, one use cases document is much better for people both
>>> inside and outside to understand the sfc activities better. The
>>> draft-liu-sfc-use-cases serves this target very well. And many use
>>> cases are basically the same according the chaining logic, why we need
>>> so many...
>>>
>>> So based on previous discussion both on the list and f2f meeting,  I
>>> am suggesting that we move forward the general document and consider
>>> other documents in meanwhile as they turn out to be significant.
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> zhen cao
>>> china mobile
>>>
>>>> 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  and
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>sfc mailing list
>>sfc@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>