Subject: Re: [sfc] SFC Terminology / Concepts

From: "Ken Gray (kegray)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:05:46 +0000

+1

It takes a village … of lawyers …or so it would seem.  But, fine/okay.

From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2014 1:47 PM
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [sfc] SFC Terminology / Concepts

Dear WG:

There has been much debate over the last few days with regards to SFC concepts. To try and form some consensus around terminology and concepts used to describe the architecture in the merged architecture draft, Joel has kindly suggested the following:

"The SFP provides a level of indirection between the fully abstract notion of service path as a sequence of functions to be delivered, and the fully specified notion of exactly what instances of SFFs the packet will visit when it actually traverses the network. By allowing the control components to specify the use of this level of indirection, the deployment may choose the degree of SFF instance selection authority that is delegated to the network.”

I’d like to ask the WG as a whole, if this clarification is something that we can get consensus on. If so, I’ll ask Joel to provide specific text, that reflects the above, for inclusion in the merged architecture draft.

Thank You,

Jim