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

[<[e-mail]>]

How can you judge the support of your suggested position at this stage? What does mean "a lot of support" here?!. 

As a chair you should not bias the discussion. 

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : sfc [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Jim Guichard
>(jguichar)
>Envoyé : vendredi 28 mars 2014 18:25
>À : Joel M. Halpern; Zhen Cao
>Cc : [e-mail]
>Objet : Re: [sfc] Progression of use case documents in the SFC WG
>
>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" <[e-mail]> 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sfc mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>sfc mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
>_______________________________________________
>sfc mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc