IETF Logo Mail Archive

[sfc] Way forward for draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified

gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com Fri, 28 May 2021 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>
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 6C58C3A3AB2; Fri, 28 May 2021 16:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, 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 CnE51DxxnoBq; Fri, 28 May 2021 16:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxus.zteusa.com (mxus.zteusa.com [4.14.134.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8C33A3AB1; Fri, 28 May 2021 16:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-us.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.36.11.29]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 92480424D347E46E7BF0; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:56:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mgapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.36.9.143]) by mse-us.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 14SNuWmX040694; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:56:32 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com)
Received: from mapi (mgapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid81; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:56:32 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 07:56:32 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af960b1833013fc8e78
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202105290756323443789@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
To: sfc-chairs@ietf.org, sfc@ietf.org
Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-us.zte.com.cn 14SNuWmX040694
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/ywnzENt5xbIF_MM8lpsATphlWTw>
Subject: [sfc] Way forward for draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified
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: Fri, 28 May 2021 23:56:41 -0000

Dear Jim, Joel, et al.,


in the course of discussing draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam, Med has pointed out that it seems useful to merge the substantive part of 

draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified to the draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam:




GIM>> I propose adding informational reference to draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified as follows:


[Med] I would prefer to have the content of ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified included in draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam unless you are confident to progress that I-D separately. It is up to you.




Thinking of Med's suggestion, I've realized that the same step can be considered for draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency. Both individual drafts extend SFC NSH Echo Request/Reply defined in draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam and might be progressed independently. On the other hand, mechanisms described in these individual drafts are useful in an SFC NSH.


Much appreciate your suggestions, guidance.








Regards,


Greg Mirsky






Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division









E: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com 
www.zte.com.cn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email