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

Joel,

What I understood from Jerome's answer is he is OK to cite the liaison document in the generic use case document (+ some text): 

"JM: And such citation/pointer (+ a few words of context) would become *the* reference for fixed-broadband use cases, removing the need for a specialized I-D in this respect. "

There is no need to edit a specific use case document only for the sake to have an IETF stamp on it.

I'm sure we can adopt a similar position for the 3GPP case.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Joel M. Halpern
>Envoyé : vendredi 28 mars 2014 16:04
>À : Zhen Cao
>Cc : sfc@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [sfc] Progression of use case documents in the SFC WG
>
>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