Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 28 January 2019 02:08 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 2D4B1130F2C for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:08:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 XmLTtmUElsbp for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:08:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BA50130F34 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:08:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [119.94.174.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA3371801591; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 03:08:17 +0100 (CET)
To: sfc@ietf.org
References: <154649225579.32607.12231566034033496144.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA09352@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAA=duU2DOKXFH6GTDsVxN__OcfEUc5D-2tszGd2Z7QYBmyCv0w@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA095B8@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAA=duU1zNrdhnnmDmHpSpiCEOwU1ezzefQDwBq50GGtm1arJtA@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA0A2A3@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <63f32944-4adf-cb3b-ad6c-aaf3cc8f0a99@joelhalpern.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA0B65E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <e3eed468-86f3-6cd0-8f0f-71a0390b2f17@joelhalpern.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA0CA9A@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <7899163b-e90e-4fec-a523-a7c4f2e881df@joelhalpern.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA0CF5E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAF4+nEF0-F2WvBMyOhDuZXotX4VgKmWU0MZpUfXSHQJk7-1H0w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, mohamed.boucadair@orange.co
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <6474c06e-ae75-3bc7-c44e-13db155faf9e@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 10:08:14 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEF0-F2WvBMyOhDuZXotX4VgKmWU0MZpUfXSHQJk7-1H0w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/rQZBRuMTh1sZPsYzIrmbRFmAMs4>
Subject: Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 02:08:28 -0000
Working Group, I read the draft and tried to pin down the comments, as far as I can see there is nothing in the current comments that bloack working group adoption, everything could during normal working group process. I actually prefer that it is done this way, rather that in the individual document to better capture wg consensus. To this end the wg chairs may want to include a note in the mail that close the adoption poll to say what the outstanding issues to be solved by the wg are. /Loa On 2019-01-26 13:35, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi Med, > > See below. > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:39 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: >> >> Joel, >> >> DSCP preservation is a trivial requirement for intra-domain SFC. Please refer to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2983: >> >> When a tunnel is not end-to-end, there are >> circumstances in which it may be desirable to propagate the DSCP >> and/or some of the information that it contains to the outer IP >> header on ingress and/or back to inner IP header on egress. > > So, I've read RFC 2983 and consulted with its author David Black. RFC > 2983 is not a standards track or BCP RFP. It's just Informational. It > focuses on two models, the "uniform" model you describe below and the > "pipe model". > >> One of the models discussed in 2983 assumes the following. >> >> In this model, any packet has exactly one DS Field >> that is used for traffic conditioning at any point, namely the DS >> Field in the outermost IP header; any others are ignored. >> Implementations of this model copy the DSCP value to the outer IP >> header at encapsulation and copy the outer header's DSCP value to the >> inner IP header at decapsulation. >> >> Because SFF is an encap/decpa function, it falls under the above implementations. > > RFC 2983 doesn't say anything about which model should be used by SFC > nor does it say which model should necessarily be used by an > "encap/decap function". I continue to believe that the pipe model, > which does not require any modification to the inner IP DSCP based on > an outer IP DSCP, is more appropriate for SFC. > > The situation is quite different for ECN, as compared with DSCP. For > example, standards track RFC 6040 requires examination of both the > outer and inner ECN marking at egress and their combination (or > dropping the packet). > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com > >> Cheers, >> Med >> >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >>> Envoyé : mercredi 23 janvier 2019 17:10 >>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN >>> Cc : draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support@ietf.org; sfc@ietf.org >>> Objet : Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support in >>> state "Candidate for WG Adoption" >>> >>> <no hat> >>> Maybe I am missing something important, but I would not expect SFF to >>> exhibit the behavior you describe relative to DSCPs. >>> >>> I do not know of any place where this is required for intra-domain >>> tunnels. It is an interesting issue for inter-domain usage of SFC. But >>> our scope is explicitly intra-domain. >>> >>> As far as I know, DSCPs are not re-marked within a domain. They are >>> modified at entry / exit from a domain, but that is not an issue for an SFF. >>> >>> Is there someplace where the behavior you are asking about is required >>> by existing documents? >>> >>> Yours, >>> Joel >>> >>> On 1/23/19 8:37 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: >>>> Hi Joel, >>>> >>>> The point Joel is SFFs has to preserve whatever DSCP marking when >>> encapsulating/encapsulation (including cases where transport encap changes). >>>> >>>> If you will, we can describe the scenario using your words: >>>> >>>> ======= >>>> Consider an SFF that receives a packet with a transport DSCP marking >>>> and an NSH header. That SFF removes the transport header. It then >>>> (usually) sends the packet via some other means to an SF, and gets the >>>> packet back. After which it sends it on to the next SFF with a new >>>> transport header carrying the NSH. >>>> Let us take as given that we want to support DSCP marking preservation. >>>> Then we need to somehow preserve the DSCP information that the SFF >>>> receives. >>>> ========== >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Med >>>> >>>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>>> De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >>>>> Envoyé : mardi 22 janvier 2019 13:31 >>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Andrew G. Malis >>>>> Cc : draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support@ietf.org; sfc@ietf.org >>>>> Objet : Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support >>> in >>>>> state "Candidate for WG Adoption" >>>>> >>>>> (again: speaking personally) >>>>> DSCP behavior is VERY different from ECN behavior in terms of >>>>> intermediate router modification. DSCPs may get rewritten at certain >>>>> specific places, but not generally at interior routers. So mapping from >>>>> the interior packet DSCP to the exterior packet DSCP and IEEE marking is >>>>> normal and safe. there is no need to reverse the process. ECN marking >>>>> needs to reverse the process due to the fact that individual routers are >>>>> expected to change the marking based on local conditions. >>>>> >>>>> At least thaat is how I understand it, >>>>> Joel >>>>> >>>>> On 1/22/19 1:25 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: >>>>>> Hi Joel, >>>>>> >>>>>> What makes ECN specific in this regards compared to DSCP marking >>>>> preservation? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Med >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>>>>> De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >>>>>>> Envoyé : vendredi 18 janvier 2019 15:55 >>>>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Andrew G. Malis >>>>>>> Cc : draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support@ietf.org; sfc@ietf.org >>>>>>> Objet : Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn- >>> support >>>>> in >>>>>>> state "Candidate for WG Adoption" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <chair hat off> >>>>>>> Let me try as an individual to paraphrase what I understand the document >>>>>>> to be offering. That authors should feel free to comment further >>>>>>> including if necessary telling me that I am confused. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Consider an SFF that receives a packet with a transport ECN indication >>>>>>> and an NSH header. That SFF removes the transport header. It then >>>>>>> (usually) sends the packet via some other means to an SF, and gets the >>>>>>> packet back. After which it sends it on to the next SFF with a new >>>>>>> transport header carrying the NSH. >>>>>>> Let us take as given that we want to support effective ECN. >>>>>>> Then we need to somehow preserve the ECN information that the SFF >>>>> receives. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One way would be to insist that the SFF, when it receives the ECN >>>>>>> information, has to rummage through to find the internal IP packet, and >>>>>>> must update the internal ECN information therein. Ugg. IThat would be >>>>>>> a pretty onerous requirement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Instead, the document suggests that the SFF transfer the marking to the >>>>>>> NSH header, and then use that NSH marking when it generates the new >>>>>>> transport header. This can then be used when the packet exits the NSH >>>>>>> domain to propagate the information to the header (which is by >>>>>>> definition exposed when the NSH header is removed.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Med, if I understand you properly you are suggesting that the SFF should >>>>>>> somehow keep the information from the transport header associated with >>>>>>> the packet, but not in the NSH header. In some SFF implementations, and >>>>>>> with some ways of working with SFs, that is doable. Requiring that >>>>>>> would limit the implementation and deployment choices. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <chair hat somewhere> >>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>> Joel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/18/19 4:15 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please see inline. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Med >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *De :*sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] *De la part de* Andrew G. Malis >>>>>>>> *Envoyé :* jeudi 17 janvier 2019 16:33 >>>>>>>> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN >>>>>>>> *Cc :* sfc-chairs@ietf.org; IETF Secretariat; >>>>>>>> draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support@ietf.org; sfc@ietf.org >>>>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed >>>>>>>> draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support in state "Candidate for WG Adoption" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Med, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your point about RFC 5129 is correct, but I'm not personally aware of >>>>>>>> any implementations. And I was just using MPLS as an example, there may >>>>>>>> be others in the future as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Med] I understood this was an example, but still this is IMHO supposed >>>>>>>> to be handled among the spirit of the effort led by Bob in 6040 and its >>>>>>>> current & futures updates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your point about the SFF preserving ECN is implementation dependent, >>> for >>>>>>>> example the SFF could have separate input and output interfaces without >>>>>>>> shared memory, or the transport encapsulation could change in different >>>>>>>> regions of the SFC domain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Med] I don’t understand your point about separate inputs/output >>>>>>>> interfaces and the change of encap schemes. Let’s put aside SFC for a >>>>>>>> moment and consider the example of a LISP XTR which is supporting ECN >>>>>>>> dissemination/handling. That xTR may not use the same in/out >>> interfaces, >>>>>>>> but still need to achieve some processing when doing its encap/decap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's difficult to depend on SFFs being able to preserve >>>>>>>> transport-header-dependent information without that becoming a >>>>>>>> requirement in the SFC architecture. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Med] I don’t think that we can tag congestion notification as >>>>>>>> “transport-header-dependent”. There are ways to pass that info even >>> when >>>>>>>> the transport encap changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is IMHO among things that the WG is supposed to cover under this >>>>>>>> item in the charter (please note that those are clearing taged as >>>>>>>> transport issues): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> == >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4) Transport Considerations - This will capture the expectations SFC >>>>>>>> places on transport behavior, including dealing with issues such as >>>>>>>> congestion indications and responses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> == >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:02 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please see inline. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Med >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *De :*Andrew G. Malis [mailto:agmalis@gmail.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:agmalis@gmail.com>] >>>>>>>> *Envoyé :* jeudi 17 janvier 2019 15:50 >>>>>>>> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN >>>>>>>> *Cc :* IETF Secretariat; sfc-chairs@ietf.org >>>>>>>> <mailto:sfc-chairs@ietf.org>; >>>>>>>> draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support@ietf.org >>>>>>>> <mailto:draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support@ietf.org>; >>> sfc@ietf.org >>>>>>>> <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> >>>>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed >>>>>>>> draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support in state "Candidate for WG >>>>> Adoption" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Med, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not all transports support ECN marking, for example NSH over >>> MPLS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Med] Isn’t this covered by RFC5129? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And even where the transport supports ECN marking, note the >>> example >>>>>>>> in Figure 1 in the draft where the outer encapsulation can be >>>>>>>> stripped during SFF processing. In that case, the scope of the >>> ECN >>>>>>>> marking is limited to individual SFF-SFF links. rather than end- >>> to- >>>>> end. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Med] Why couldn’t SFF preserve ECN when doing its transport >>>>>>>> decap/encap? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 9:12 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do think that ECN is naturally better handled at the >>> transport >>>>>>>> encapsulation instead of the NSH itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Requiring the functionality to be handled at the transport >>> encap >>>>>>>> (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim) and NSH is redundant, >>> IMO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the approach we set in the SFC architecture in which >>> we >>>>>>>> separated service matters from transport ones. I'd vote for >>>>>>>> maintaining that separation cleaner as it was set in the arch >>>>> RFC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Med >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > -----Message d'origine----- >>>>>>>> > De : sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org >>>>>>>> <mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org>] De la part de IETF Secretariat >>>>>>>> > Envoyé : jeudi 3 janvier 2019 06:11 >>>>>>>> > À : sfc-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:sfc-chairs@ietf.org>; >>>>>>>> draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support@ietf.org >>>>>>>> <mailto:draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support@ietf.org>; >>>>>>>> > sfc@ietf.org <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> >>>>>>>> > Objet : [sfc] The SFC WG has placed >>>>>>>> draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support in >>>>>>>> > state "Candidate for WG Adoption" >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support >>> in >>>>>>> state >>>>>>>> > Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Joel Halpern) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The document is available at >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn- >>>>>>> support/ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Comment: >>>>>>>> > This starts the WG call for adoption of this draft. >>>>>>>> > Please respond to the list, indicating support for this as >>> a >>>>>>>> work item of the >>>>>>>> > working group with this document as the basis for the >>> work, >>>>>>>> or objection to >>>>>>>> > the working group adopting this item as a working group >>>>> draft. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The authors should confirm to the chairs and WG secretary >>>>>>>> that all IPR known >>>>>>>> > to them relevant to this draft has been disclosed. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The working group adoption call will last 2 weeks, ending >>> at >>>>>>>> the end of the >>>>>>>> > day on Thursday, January 17 2019 COB somewhere. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Thank you, >>>>>>>> > Joel >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > sfc mailing list >>>>>>>> > sfc@ietf.org <mailto:sfc@ietf.org> >>>>>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc >>>>>>>> > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sfc-ns… IETF Secretariat
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Diego R. Lopez
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Mach Chen
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Loa Andersson
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [sfc] The SFC WG has placed draft-eastlake-sf… Donald Eastlake