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

"Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <jguichar@cisco.com> Fri, 28 March 2014 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jguichar@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0171A0936 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 Qx89zvPZsZjo for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13461A0934 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3240; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1396027515; x=1397237115; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Ie495uDXiWGzz30VFFOKZZJsiJOT0FWzdbmxYEdAlWo=; b=GAMYLY+d32RbHEPtMjpzmtauyvdDLHmtLK8H7GFLxJ4vgWc0VK7D6sFP 8EcrssD9ney6IplK130zs0sjs6vuuQ+w/QAosU/kInDq49M4KnDdpVmay 1iduwlAClWrHpdfAo1/7QpI/gSEIB8o1ChYtD8mFbeldWTGZ2HFCO6gsR c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFADqwNVOtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgwY7V7s7hzWBGBZ0giUBAQEEAQEBGh00AwgQAgEIGB4QJwslAgQBDQUJh3AN0XMXjhgOAgIBTwIFhDgElGKDbIEzkQKDMIIr
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,752,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="313671133"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2014 17:25:14 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2SHPDGo023627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:25:14 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.171]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:25:13 -0500
From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <jguichar@cisco.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] Progression of use case documents in the SFC WG
Thread-Index: AQHPSRxfEA3AATWG/kWi/n3iJI0NjZr2gpsAgABs1ID//+R0gA==
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:25:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CF5B2896.1E7AC%jguichar@cisco.com>
References: <CF588C77.1E5F9%jguichar@cisco.com> <CAProHARwm+vZC0YboprVMM94BCrdKXOR7m0GUA5KTxu08hKJ0w@mail.gmail.com> <53358F53.2030409@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <53358F53.2030409@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.98.43.184]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <12E05D26E063C24189D526D756650B94@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/tl8mGjdeRtaDz3dyMiD-IBxnORw
Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Progression of use case documents in the SFC WG
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0000

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" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> 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
>>> 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