Subject: Re: [sfc] wording Suggestion for the Rendered Service Path (RSP) in draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-05

From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:34:37 +0000

Agreed. Constrained Service Paths at the SFP level is important.

From: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 1:22 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Ron Parker <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [sfc] wording Suggestion for the Rendered Service Path (RSP) in draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-05

Also, it is quite possible to have tighter ordering constraints on an SFP than on an SFC.  How tight the ordering constraints are in the SFC probably depends upon the SFC definer and tools.