Re: [sfc] WG LC on draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Mon, 06 June 2022 01:25 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 A11E6C14F746 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jun 2022 18:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Refop7otsSjC for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jun 2022 18:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C98FAC14F748 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jun 2022 18:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4LGbQk6gv8z8QrkZ; Mon, 6 Jun 2022 09:25:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 2561PWqR089301; Mon, 6 Jun 2022 09:25:32 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 6 Jun 2022 09:25:32 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2022 09:25:32 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb629d578cffffffffdb035b32
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202206060925324789963@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <46098FE8-9AF4-43B6-90AF-45EA109295BC@gmail.com>
References: c26e4142-aa80-6e54-f997-2f81e025076c@joelhalpern.com, 46098FE8-9AF4-43B6-90AF-45EA109295BC@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: jmh@joelhalpern.com, sfc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 2561PWqR089301
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 629D578E.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1654478734/4LGbQk6gv8z8QrkZ/629D578E.000/10.30.14.238/[10.30.14.238]/mse-fl1.zte.com.cn/<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 629D578E.000/4LGbQk6gv8z8QrkZ
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/sTKCn6V0XotfvpYGKoDUs83o__0>
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG LC on draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 06 Jun 2022 01:25:40 -0000

I agree with Jeff and support its publication.

Best Regards,
Xiao Min
------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人:JeffTantsura
收件人:Joel Halpern;
抄送人:sfc@ietf.org;
日 期 :2022年06月06日 02:35
主 题 :Re: [sfc] WG LC on draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam
I support further progress of the draft, well written and provides a set of specifications needed for active OAM in SFC.

Cheers,
Jeff

> On Jun 2, 2022, at 11:51, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> Technically, the draft is still in last call from quite some time ago.
>
> For clarity, and as there have been clarifications in relate terminology, the chairs have decided to consider taht we are restarting the last call today.
>
> This Working Group Last call will run for 2 weeks (and a day) until CoB on June 17, 2022.
>
> Please respond positively or negatively to this call.  Note that if we do not get enough responses we will likely be unable to advance the document before the WG closes.
>
> When responding, please provide clear motivation either for or against publication as an RFC.  Substantive comments are MUCH more helpful than "yes" or "no".
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Joel and Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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