Re: [sfc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 26 June 2018 06:12 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 BEB79130E87; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 23:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 lgziWH_KBzUg; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 23:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta239.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2263127AC2; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 23:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by opfedar22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6C8D560C72; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:12:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.66]) by opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4F16440058; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:12:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::95e2:eb4b:3053:fabf%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:12:13 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical@ietf.org>, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>, "sfc-chairs@ietf.org" <sfc-chairs@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUDMIukAU6KIG30ESWRByKjJsZSKRyD2Rw
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 06:12:11 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DF4BBD4@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <152954550322.28624.14636040697546417914.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DF49B65@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20180622182042.GJ64617@kduck.kaduk.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DF4B5E3@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20180625202157.GI99689@kduck.kaduk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180625202157.GI99689@kduck.kaduk.org>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/cABYcrSYkVr5DZhQFF0oXGUMbx0>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 26 Jun 2018 06:12:19 -0000
Hi Benjamin, Deal! I uploaded a new version with the changes discussed in this thread. Thank you very much for engaging and reviewing. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:kaduk@mit.edu] > Envoyé : lundi 25 juin 2018 22:22 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > Cc : The IESG; draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical@ietf.org; Behcet Sarikaya; sfc- > chairs@ietf.org; sfc@ietf.org > Objet : Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-09: (with > DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 02:06:26PM +0000, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Benjamin, > > > > Please see inline. > > This all looks good; just one final note inline > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:kaduk@mit.edu] > > > Envoyé : vendredi 22 juin 2018 20:21 > > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > > > Cc : The IESG; draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical@ietf.org; Behcet Sarikaya; > sfc- > > > chairs@ietf.org; sfc@ietf.org > > > Objet : Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-09: > (with > > > DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 06:42:11AM +0000, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > > De : Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:kaduk@mit.edu] > > > > > Envoyé : jeudi 21 juin 2018 03:45 > > > > > À : The IESG > > > > > The approach described in Section 4.1.5 also seems to be incompletely > > > > > specified, in that the hSFC Flow ID semantics are not covered at all. > On > > > > > my initial reading I assumed that this field's encoding and semantics > > > were > > > > > intended to be left as entirely local matters to the lower domain, > > > avoiding > > > > > a need to specify them in this document. > > > > > > > > [Med] The semantic is local to a domain. > > > > > > Agreed, it will not escape a single domain. > > > > > > > However, I'm not sure that it's > > > > > actually true, since we generally want multiple vendors to be able to > > > > > interoperate, > > > > > > > > [Med] Intermediate SFC elements do not need to understand the semantic > of > > > flowID. They will handle the flowID as an opaque value. > > > > > > Agreed. I think it might help to call out (as is done in Section 4.1.1) > > > that if the egress IBN differs from the ingress IBN, there is a need for > > > state synchronization between those nodes. > > > > [Med] This is the intent of "state replication mentioned in Section 4.1.1". > > > > I changed the text to "state synchronization mentioned in Section 4.1.1". > > Ah, looking at the -10 now I finally see what you are referring to. I > think when I first read "state timeout and replication mentioned in Section > 4.1.1" I did not make the connection that it was specifically the *state* > replication as well. Probably that's just me reading to fast, but I think > your change does increase clarity. > > Thanks again, > > Benjamin
- Re: [sfc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… mohamed.boucadair
- [sfc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [sfc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [sfc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Benjamin Kaduk