From nobody Mon Aug 3 17:11:52 2015 Return-Path: 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 8C2CE1B322B for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:11:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ZgAphiDwMNWl for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5F451B3228 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:11:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4029; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438647108; x=1439856708; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Z8K4kRJV2PuOOcAApvmyiv3ERvj5EfoT8boDr6jR/P0=; b=N7oJouADxSgtJJ4vKhtV+/EqLrNoMz4+pfcQuP0j2Sxt1sxRfmGrwmYc wNn35Blh+9kSpFTxUb+4bMSd8dGqQAaLWZ+qCmsVTzNyWiwut3WZO4Gyz qMIjs63Yi339UXOoBWRbw1qwfFO2beqCuBGQH+r1A35Z50JkDcmb61Coj A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AjAwD3AcBV/4QNJK1bgk1NVG+8TgmCBIV5gTk4FAEBAQEBAQF/C4QqHVEdAQx0JwSIQQ2lFKYQAQEIHgSPdBEBTYQ3BZR5AYR6h1GBR4Qgj32DZCaDfYF9OoEEAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,605,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="175108196" Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2015 00:11:48 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t740BlH9005300 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 00:11:47 GMT Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:11:47 -0500 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (173.36.12.82) by xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:11:47 -0500 Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.17]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:11:47 -0500 From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" To: "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNg== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 00:11:46 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117 x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.17] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1E57BA31D0CBjguicharciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:11:50 -0000 --_000_D1E57BA31D0CBjguicharciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August = 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus tha= t the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just becau= se you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_D1E57BA31D0CBjguicharciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings= WG:

This mess= age begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://dat= atracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015.

Please re= spond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or disapprova= l.

As always= please note the following:
  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is ex= pected to modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content.
  2. If you have objections to = adoption of the document, please state your reasons why, and explain what i= t would take to address your concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the = content, by all means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about ho= w best to address them.
Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that= applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG = participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you = are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware = of any relevant IPR.

Jim &= Thomas
--_000_D1E57BA31D0CBjguicharciscocom_-- From nobody Mon Aug 3 17:15:13 2015 Return-Path: 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 D51AF1B2A10 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:15:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Oormx9t4SwcF for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83DDA1B2A0F for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8269A06B0; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:15:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2C539A06AA; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:15:09 -0700 (PDT) To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" References: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <55C0040C.8010004@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:15:08 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:15:12 -0000 I support adoption of this draft. We are getting a lot of piece-part proposals toward OAM. Without a big-picture document, it is extremely likely that the pieces will not work together, and that some imnportant aspects will be missed. (And yes, I helped write earlier drafts that went into this one.) Yours, Joel On 8/3/15 8:11 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) wrote: > Greetings WG: > > This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending > 17th August 2015. > > Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval > or disapproval. > > As always please note the following: > > 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is > expected to modify the document’s content until there is WG > consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose > adoption just because you want to see changes to its content. > 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state > your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your > concerns. > 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues > and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. > > Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that > applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for > WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to > the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > > Jim & Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > From nobody Tue Aug 4 01:32:52 2015 Return-Path: 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 A32CA1A8AB1 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 nKvZf-tz92UH for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtptc.telefonica.com (smtptc.telefonica.com [195.76.34.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14F811A6F03 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtptc.telefonica.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0607288196; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:14:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESTGVMSP101.EUROPE.telefonica.corp (unknown [10.92.4.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtptc.telefonica.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8C0E8818B; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:14:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.92.5.139) by tls.telefonica.com (10.92.6.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:14:50 +0200 Received: from DB4PR06MB0623.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.13.141) by DB4PR06MB474.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.238.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.225.19; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:14:49 +0000 Received: from DB4PR06MB0624.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.13.142) by DB4PR06MB0623.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.13.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.225.19; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:14:49 +0000 Received: from DB4PR06MB0624.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.161.13.142]) by DB4PR06MB0624.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.161.13.142]) with mapi id 15.01.0225.018; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:14:49 +0000 From: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA To: "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp36+KkAgACGBAA= Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:14:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: <55C0040C.8010004@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <55C0040C.8010004@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [83.54.131.243] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB4PR06MB0623; 5:B4bpZCDR3tTyoLUB5PREHLIlGmRBX726CkJqouYcSkRsJ62zTs2JAt1xpF9ZgLv+L3BdPzWaG33BtT0qxpEoXnIHonmWk5nfmUJgit9peSQCCr0kT64CLs64f2AX4ixLEl9DzFNUrYrYYWZRiL84UA==; 24:w/4+zJBl0JFoBhOW0JZKTHpf/rNr30I6y2GGEQ49PlVGRpUFHQtnbvZ2ZhQBPNPaTwGthM88/6CNDNtj1aloAN2XTSM5EnWyqhmJFLIKObs=; 20:/E+/A5KLf9cmYK2/CesQqpvyIFvB4Ve+sstzmLx6J5/E5UEPxhqXQoCsQlmCnw4JA17S79D3x03ZvRT+xEiS2Q== x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0623; UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR06MB474; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(3002001); SRVR:DB4PR06MB0623; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0623; x-forefront-prvs: 0658BAF71F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(377454003)(479174004)(24454002)(252514010)(189002)(199003)(110136002)(5001960100002)(105586002)(230783001)(2501003)(19617315012)(68736005)(15975445007)(2351001)(66066001)(102836002)(5001860100001)(5002640100001)(97736004)(5001830100001)(33656002)(77096005)(4001540100001)(46102003)(189998001)(81156007)(64706001)(86362001)(83716003)(62966003)(54356999)(76176999)(87936001)(122556002)(2656002)(16236675004)(40100003)(2950100001)(82746002)(101416001)(2900100001)(77156002)(36756003)(106116001)(50986999)(19580405001)(19580395003)(92566002)(106356001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0623; H:DB4PR06MB0624.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: telefonica.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E8798ACE223742C4B2C277A5E0FC612Btelefonicacom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Aug 2015 08:14:49.5897 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9744600e-3e04-492e-baa1-25ec245c6f10 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR06MB0623 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; DB4PR06MB474; 2:KjrrmKrgp0gdvW5BzVDh1KkT41DqtVaZIiAix6PTypXT4EPmzvlcy167MxzPYQC6G5PG/OpXqMVkq6zSgCBFUeHtTfgbNdRHqxxojct+oYDnjdBJNmxBr5pT4tbDGNCVNYinU8S3VFVjJU2NQg20WfbYz68Y0OWRTXSOqakrZuM=; 3:VCMtxzk4fek155r6OUoqB6rn+MB/PJzCWhT/rXSB7KwYjOSbtR283knToVMGk4/GysnWYy/yxD2mh3onGHB1RlHhR8c+kFN5FqDXL+yoquPJeh0gwKQ9wvp/poE8GQt7E0CbO9rrAcpHZROXshRwhQ==; 25:BBQ8u5A86z6jsQQmnDlllnlPP9DrOmGjw1yEvptOsLkITOH+7+C/2hpsLt02olcrZITnT3/nD4bpPb6hu1PLvcZ5uFWpdwuGFG01GqOUe9vioILDLj2MUQu2PLahB+prB3q26eN2ydw68YFFmZwXLukCAVnsP/LXU3i8KKy5bbei80Qj06HCdG+p9S1PhED0bQpBu2+TmPBEeDPd8/iA8XDKapAaApgL+CQCvml4BPht6zSkzTFF94MAkMaFAxAXfvnovukeop1qcRXQ3yGQYA==; 23:9Fp+JnrU1Xf97NRT26Z2Vpb4gMrTy3oi0ToeHcYCJ42CyTpH9Ddwd/v8XKIhDmKG0Oa1KTrISzcgCBG0Syl8CyepRCmjiRI2bgrdch7+QghJLuMl3VoLIYATUu/tPAW6KapKzkCjhSYJdMMYHPpEQY9ltzuCYjRlbmzALmNNPgJhcv5Kx3AlMA4Libaaqq1u/WfN5piBCZh6tYhYb8xsIXuwZoKKWkSLLlXfy56F6EHc4W8bOEwieFAGXGb26Hdb X-OriginatorOrg: telefonica.com X-TM-AS-MML: No Archived-At: Cc: "Jim Guichard \(jguichar\)" , "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:32:50 -0000 --_000_E8798ACE223742C4B2C277A5E0FC612Btelefonicacom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Being in the same position as Joel (in terms of having contributed to earli= er versions) I share his opinion on the need of an OAM big-picture document= , and support adoption. Be goode, On 4 Aug 2015, at 02:15 , Joel M. Halpern > wrote: I support adoption of this draft. We are getting a lot of piece-part propo= sals toward OAM. Without a big-picture document, it is extremely likely th= at the pieces will not work together, and that some imnportant aspects will= be missed. (And yes, I helped write earlier drafts that went into this one.) Yours, Joel On 8/3/15 8:11 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) wrote: Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is expected to modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. 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 -- "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" Dr Diego R. Lopez Telefonica I+D http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ e-mail: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com Tel: +34 913 129 041 Mobile: +34 682 051 091 ---------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, pu= ede contener informaci=F3n privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclus= ivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario ind= icado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilizaci=F3n, divulgaci=F3n y/o= copia sin autorizaci=F3n puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislaci= =F3n vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo = comunique inmediatamente por esta misma v=EDa y proceda a su destrucci=F3n. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidenti= al information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named = above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are= hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this co= mmunication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission = in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you h= ave received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinat=E1rio= , pode conter informa=E7=E3o privilegiada ou confidencial e =E9 para uso ex= clusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se n=E3o =E9 vossa senhoria o des= tinat=E1rio indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utiliza=E7=E3o, div= ulga=E7=E3o e/ou c=F3pia sem autoriza=E7=E3o pode estar proibida em virtude= da legisla=E7=E3o vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe = que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destru= i=E7=E3o --_000_E8798ACE223742C4B2C277A5E0FC612Btelefonicacom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

Being in the same position as Joel (in terms of having contributed to = earlier versions) I share his opinion on the need of an OAM big-picture doc= ument, and support adoption.

Be goode,

On 4 Aug 2015, at 02:15 , Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

I support adoption of this draft.  We are getting a lot of piece-part = proposals toward OAM.  Without a big-picture document, it is extremely= likely that the pieces will not work together, and that some imnportant as= pects will be missed.

(And yes, I helped write earlier drafts that went into this one.)

Yours,
Joel

On 8/3/15 8:11 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) wrote:
Greetings WG:

This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending
17th August 2015.

Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval
or disapproval.

As always please note the following:

1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is
   expected to modify the document=92s content until there i= s WG
   consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do= not oppose
   adoption just because you want to see changes to its cont= ent.
2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state
   your reasons why, and explain what it would take to addre= ss your
   concerns.
3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues
   and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.=

Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that
applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for
WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to
the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

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

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lo= pez/

e-mail: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------



Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, pu= ede contener informaci=F3n privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclus= ivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario ind= icado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilizaci=F3n, divulgaci=F3n y/o copia sin autorizaci=F3n puede e= star prohibida en virtud de la legislaci=F3n vigente. Si ha recibido este m= ensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta m= isma v=EDa y proceda a su destrucci=F3n.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidenti= al information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named = above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are= hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If y= ou have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immedia= tely reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error= and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinat=E1rio= , pode conter informa=E7=E3o privilegiada ou confidencial e =E9 para uso ex= clusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se n=E3o =E9 vossa senhoria o des= tinat=E1rio indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utiliza=E7=E3o, divulga=E7=E3o e/ou c=F3pia sem autoriza=E7=E3o p= ode estar proibida em virtude da legisla=E7=E3o vigente. Se recebeu esta me= nsagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mes= ma via e proceda a sua destrui=E7=E3o
 --_000_E8798ACE223742C4B2C277A5E0FC612Btelefonicacom_-- From nobody Tue Aug 4 01:36:55 2015 Return-Path: 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 48B431A8AB1; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.76 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 a7geoEuQ1QSs; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:36:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx6.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA33B1A0061; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.119]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id 96555A3D96302; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 16:30:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 8CDDCB3E1266C; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 16:36:44 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id t748aX4i069844; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 16:36:33 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from wang.cui1@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: References: To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KeepSent: 99BA8C28:4941D07D-48257E97:002BDA35; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 Message-ID: From: wang.cui1@zte.com.cn Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 16:36:40 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2015-08-04 16:36:17, Serialize complete at 2015-08-04 16:36:17 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002F4B1948257E97_=" X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn t748aX4i069844 Archived-At: Cc: sfc , "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:36:53 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 002F4B1948257E97_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBzdXBwb3J0IGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQuIA0KDQpCdXQgSSBoYXZlIGFuIGlzc3Vl LCBtYXliZSB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycyBjYW4gaGVscCBtZSBvdXQgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyAN Cmlzc3VlOikNCg0KSW4gdGhlICgxLiBTZXJ2aWNlIGZ1bmN0aW9uKSBwYXJhZ3JhcGggb2Ygc2Vj dGlvbiAzLCBpdCBtZW50aW9ucyB0aGF0IFNGQyANCk9BTSBtdXN0IGJlIGFibGUgdG8gDQptb25p dG9yIHRoZSBTRkYgYXNzb2NpYXRlZCB3aXRoIGEgZ2l2ZW4gU0YuIEluIGZhY3QsIEkgdG90YWxs eSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIA0KdGhpcyBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uOg0KU0ZGcyBzaG91bGQgYmUgbW9uaXRv cmVkIGluIFNGQyBPQU0uIEJ1dCwgdGhpcyBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uIGlzIG5vdCANCnByb3Blcmx5 IGlsbHVzdHJhdGVkIGluIHRoZSBGaWd1cmUgMi4gDQpCeSB0aGUgd2F5LCBhbm90aGVyIGRvY3Vt ZW50IG9mIG1pbmUgKA0KaHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pZC9kcmFmdC13YW5nLXNmYy1t dWx0aS1sYXllci1vYW0tMDIudHh0KQ0KYWxzbyBtZW50aW9uZWQgdGhlIFNGQyBPQU0gYmV0d2Vl biBTRkZzLiANCg0KQW5kIGFsc28sIEkgc2F3IHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgU0ZDIE9BTSBiZXR3ZWVuIENv bnRyb2xsZXIgYW5kIFNGMy4gQ291bGQgeW91IA0KZXhwbGFpbiB0aGlzIGtpbmQgb2YgDQpTRkMg T0FNIGluIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQ/IA0KDQpUaGFua3MgdmVyeSBtdWNoOikNCg0KQmVzdCBSZWdh cmRzLA0KTGluZGEgV2FuZw0KDQoNCg0KInNmYyIgPHNmYy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPiDQtNPa IDIwMTUtMDgtMDQgMDg6MTE6NDY6DQoNCj4gIkppbSBHdWljaGFyZCAoamd1aWNoYXIpIiA8amd1 aWNoYXJAY2lzY28uY29tPiANCj4gt6K8/sjLOiAgInNmYyIgPHNmYy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3Jn Pg0KPiANCj4gMjAxNS0wOC0wNCAwODoxMQ0KPiANCj4gytW8/sjLDQo+IA0KPiAic2ZjQGlldGYu b3JnIiA8c2ZjQGlldGYub3JnPiwgDQo+IA0KPiCzrcvNDQo+IA0KPiDW98ziDQo+IA0KPiBbc2Zj XSBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1hbGRyaW4tc2ZjLW9hbS1mcmFtZXdvcmsNCj4gDQo+IEdy ZWV0aW5ncyBXRzoNCj4gDQo+IFRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBiZWdpbnMgYSAyIHdlZWsgY2FsbCBmb3Ig V0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IA0KPiBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYu b3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1hbGRyaW4tc2ZjLW9hbS1mcmFtZXdvcmsvIA0KPiBlbmRpbmcgMTd0aCBB dWd1c3QgMjAxNS4NCj4gDQo+IFBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvIHRoZSBTRkMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0 IHdpdGggYW55IHN0YXRlbWVudHMgb2YgDQo+IGFwcHJvdmFsIG9yIGRpc2FwcHJvdmFsLg0KPiAN Cj4gQXMgYWx3YXlzIHBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmc6DQo+IDEuIFRoaXMgaXMgbm90 IGEgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsLiBUaGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgbm90IGZpbmFsLCBhbmQgdGhlIFdHDQo+ IGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvIG1vZGlmeSB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnShr3MgY29udGVudCB1bnRpbCB0aGVy ZSBpcyBXRyANCj4gY29uc2Vuc3VzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQgaXMgc29saWQuIFRoZXJlZm9y ZSwgcGxlYXNlIGRvIG5vdCBvcHBvc2UNCj4gYWRvcHRpb24ganVzdCBiZWNhdXNlIHlvdSB3YW50 IHRvIHNlZSBjaGFuZ2VzIHRvIGl0cyBjb250ZW50Lg0KPiAyLiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBvYmplY3Rp b25zIHRvIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgcGxlYXNlIHN0YXRlIA0KPiB5b3VyIHJl YXNvbnMgd2h5LCBhbmQgZXhwbGFpbiB3aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIHRha2UgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB5b3Vy IA0KY29uY2VybnMuDQo+IDMuIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIGlzc3VlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBjb250ZW50LCBi eSBhbGwgbWVhbnMgcmFpc2UgdGhvc2UgDQo+IGlzc3VlcyBhbmQgd2UgY2FuIGJlZ2luIGEgZGlh bG9nIGFib3V0IGhvdyBiZXN0IHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgdGhlbS4NCj4gRmluYWxseSwgbm93IGlzIGFs c28gYSBnb29kIHRpbWUgdG8gcG9sbCBmb3Iga25vd2xlZGdlIG9mIGFueSBJUFIgDQo+IHRoYXQg YXBwbGllcyB0byB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBpbiBsaW5lIHdpdGggdGhlIElQUiBkaXNjbG9zdXJlIA0K PiBvYmxpZ2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgV0cgcGFydGljaXBhbnRzIChzZWUgUkZDcyAzOTc5LCA0ODc5LCAz NjY5IGFuZCA1Mzc4IA0KPiBmb3IgbW9yZSBkZXRhaWxzKS4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBsaXN0ZWQgYXMg YSBkb2N1bWVudCBhdXRob3IgcGxlYXNlIA0KPiByZXNwb25kIHRvIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgKHRvIHRo ZSBjaGFpcnMpIHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IHlvdSBhcmUgYXdhcmUgDQo+IG9mIGFueSByZWxldmFu dCBJUFIuDQo+IA0KPiBKaW0gJiBUaG9tYXNfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBzZmMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IHNmY0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBo dHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NmYw0KDQo= --=_alternative 002F4B1948257E97_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkkgc3VwcG9ydCBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGlz IGRyYWZ0LiA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYi PkJ1dCBJIGhhdmUgYW4gaXNzdWUsIG1heWJlIHRoZSBhdXRob3JzDQpjYW4gaGVscCBtZSBvdXQg YWJvdXQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBpc3N1ZTopPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9 MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5JbiB0aGUgKDEuIFNlcnZpY2UgZnVuY3Rpb24pIHBhcmFncmFw aA0Kb2Ygc2VjdGlvbiAzLCBpdCBtZW50aW9ucyB0aGF0IFNGQyBPQU0gbXVzdCBiZSBhYmxlIHRv IDwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+bW9uaXRvciB0aGUg U0ZGIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgd2l0aCBhIGdpdmVuDQpTRi4gSW4gZmFjdCwgSSB0b3RhbGx5IGFncmVl IHdpdGggdGhpcyBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uOjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0i c2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+U0ZGcyBzaG91bGQgYmUgbW9uaXRvcmVkIGluIFNGQyBPQU0uDQpCdXQsIHRo aXMgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiBpcyBub3QgcHJvcGVybHkgaWxsdXN0cmF0ZWQgaW4gdGhlIEZpZ3Vy ZSAyLiA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkJ5IHRoZSB3 YXksIGFub3RoZXIgZG9jdW1lbnQgb2YgbWluZQ0KKDwvZm9udD48YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL3Rv b2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2lkL2RyYWZ0LXdhbmctc2ZjLW11bHRpLWxheWVyLW9hbS0wMi50eHQiPjxm b250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5odHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2lkL2Ry YWZ0LXdhbmctc2ZjLW11bHRpLWxheWVyLW9hbS0wMi50eHQ8L2ZvbnQ+PC9hPjxmb250IHNpemU9 MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4pPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5z LXNlcmlmIj5hbHNvIG1lbnRpb25lZCB0aGUgU0ZDIE9BTSBiZXR3ZWVuIFNGRnMuDQo8L2ZvbnQ+ DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkFuZCBhbHNvLCBJIHNh dyB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIFNGQyBPQU0gYmV0d2Vlbg0KQ29udHJvbGxlciBhbmQgU0YzLiBDb3VsZCB5 b3UgZXhwbGFpbiB0aGlzIGtpbmQgb2YgPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJz YW5zLXNlcmlmIj5TRkMgT0FNIGluIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQ/IDwvZm9udD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48 Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+VGhhbmtzIHZlcnkgbXVjaDopPC9mb250Pg0K PGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5CZXN0IFJlZ2FyZHMsPC9m b250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5MaW5kYSBXYW5nPC9mb250 Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+JnF1b3Q7c2ZjJnF1b3Q7 ICZsdDtzZmMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyZndDsg0LTT2g0KMjAxNS0wOC0wNCAwODoxMTo0Njo8 YnI+DQo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZxdW90O0ppbSBHdWljaGFyZCAoamd1aWNoYXIpJnF1b3Q7ICZsdDtq Z3VpY2hhckBjaXNjby5jb20mZ3Q7IDwvZm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+ Jmd0OyC3orz+yMs6ICZuYnNwOyZxdW90O3NmYyZxdW90OyAmbHQ7c2ZjLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5v cmcmZ3Q7PGJyPg0KJmd0OyA8L2ZvbnQ+PC90dD4NCjxicj48dHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yPiZndDsg MjAxNS0wOC0wNCAwODoxMTwvZm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+Jmd0OyA8 YnI+DQomZ3Q7IMrVvP7IyzwvZm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+Jmd0OyA8 YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZxdW90O3NmY0BpZXRmLm9yZyZxdW90OyAmbHQ7c2ZjQGlldGYub3JnJmd0Oywg PC9mb250PjwvdHQ+DQo8YnI+PHR0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj4mZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgs63LzTwv Zm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+Jmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7INb3zOI8L2Zv bnQ+PC90dD4NCjxicj48dHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yPiZndDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBbc2ZjXSBXRyBh ZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1hbGRyaW4tc2ZjLW9hbS1mcmFtZXdvcms8L2ZvbnQ+PC90dD4NCjxi cj48dHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yPiZndDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBHcmVldGluZ3MgV0c6PC9mb250Pjwv dHQ+DQo8YnI+PHR0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj4mZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGJl Z2lucyBhIDIgd2VlayBjYWxsIGZvciBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQNCjxicj4N CiZndDsgPC9mb250PjwvdHQ+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9k b2MvZHJhZnQtYWxkcmluLXNmYy1vYW0tZnJhbWV3b3JrLyI+PHR0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj5odHRw czovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1hbGRyaW4tc2ZjLW9hbS1mcmFtZXdv cmsvPC9mb250PjwvdHQ+PC9hPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+DQo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IGVuZGluZyAx N3RoIEF1Z3VzdCAyMDE1LjwvZm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+Jmd0OyA8 YnI+DQomZ3Q7IFBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvIHRoZSBTRkMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0IHdpdGggYW55 IHN0YXRlbWVudHMgb2YgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBhcHByb3ZhbCBvciBkaXNhcHByb3ZhbC48L2ZvbnQ+ PC90dD4NCjxicj48dHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yPiZndDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBBcyBhbHdheXMgcGxl YXNlIG5vdGUgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZzo8L2ZvbnQ+PC90dD4NCjxicj48dHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0y PiZndDsgMS4gVGhpcyBpcyBub3QgYSBXRyBsYXN0IGNhbGwuIFRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBpcw0Kbm90 IGZpbmFsLCBhbmQgdGhlIFdHPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBtb2RpZnkgdGhlIGRv Y3VtZW50oa9zIGNvbnRlbnQgdW50aWwgdGhlcmUgaXMgV0cgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBjb25zZW5zdXMg dGhhdCB0aGUgY29udGVudCBpcyBzb2xpZC4gVGhlcmVmb3JlLCBwbGVhc2UgZG8gbm90IG9wcG9z ZTxicj4NCiZndDsgYWRvcHRpb24ganVzdCBiZWNhdXNlIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIHNlZSBjaGFuZ2Vz IHRvIGl0cyBjb250ZW50LjwvZm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+Jmd0OyAy LiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBvYmplY3Rpb25zIHRvIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIHRoZQ0KZG9jdW1lbnQsIHBs ZWFzZSBzdGF0ZSA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IHlvdXIgcmVhc29ucyB3aHksIGFuZCBleHBsYWluIHdoYXQg aXQgd291bGQgdGFrZSB0byBhZGRyZXNzIHlvdXIgY29uY2VybnMuPC9mb250PjwvdHQ+DQo8YnI+ PHR0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj4mZ3Q7IDMuIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIGlzc3VlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBjb250 ZW50LCBieSBhbGwNCm1lYW5zIHJhaXNlIHRob3NlIDxicj4NCiZndDsgaXNzdWVzIGFuZCB3ZSBj YW4gYmVnaW4gYSBkaWFsb2cgYWJvdXQgaG93IGJlc3QgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB0aGVtLjwvZm9udD48 L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+Jmd0OyBGaW5hbGx5LCBub3cgaXMgYWxzbyBhIGdv b2QgdGltZSB0byBwb2xsIGZvcg0Ka25vd2xlZGdlIG9mIGFueSBJUFIgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyB0aGF0 IGFwcGxpZXMgdG8gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCwgaW4gbGluZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBJUFIgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSA8 YnI+DQomZ3Q7IG9ibGlnYXRpb25zIGZvciBXRyBwYXJ0aWNpcGFudHMgKHNlZSBSRkNzIDM5Nzks IDQ4NzksIDM2NjkgYW5kIDUzNzgNCjxicj4NCiZndDsgZm9yIG1vcmUgZGV0YWlscykuIElmIHlv dSBhcmUgbGlzdGVkIGFzIGEgZG9jdW1lbnQgYXV0aG9yIHBsZWFzZSA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IHJlc3Bv bmQgdG8gdGhpcyBlbWFpbCAodG8gdGhlIGNoYWlycykgd2hldGhlciBvciBub3QgeW91IGFyZSBh d2FyZQ0KPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBvZiBhbnkgcmVsZXZhbnQgSVBSLjwvZm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0 dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+Jmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IEppbSAmYW1wOyBUaG9tYXNfX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXzxicj4NCiZndDsgc2ZjIG1haWxp bmcgbGlzdDxicj4NCiZndDsgc2ZjQGlldGYub3JnPGJyPg0KJmd0OyA8L2ZvbnQ+PC90dD48YSBo cmVmPWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc2ZjPjx0dD48Zm9udCBz aXplPTI+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zZmM8L2ZvbnQ+PC90 dD48L2E+PHR0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj48YnI+DQo8L2ZvbnQ+PC90dD4NCg== --=_alternative 002F4B1948257E97_=-- From nobody Tue Aug 4 06:35:57 2015 Return-Path: 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 EC9F41AC3BE for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:35:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 e81NVEHc0u9o for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:35:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hub021-ca-8.exch021.serverdata.net (hub021-ca-8.exch021.serverdata.net [64.78.56.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9637C1A0275 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local ([10.254.4.78]) by HUB021-CA-8.exch021.domain.local ([10.254.4.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:34:43 -0700 From: Ron Parker To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp37yqKA Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:34:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [50.205.79.154] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B2E8F39F9MBX021W3CA2exch_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:35:55 -0000 --_000_CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B2E8F39F9MBX021W3CA2exch_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Conditionally approve adoption, but with significant and editorial issues t= hat should be addressed first. Ron 1. Regarding the following excerpt, SFF's should be explicitly mentio= ned. The text, "from one SF to the next" can not be contextualized withou= t the SFF. o The service layer, refered to as the "Service Layer" in Figure 1, consists of classifiers and SFs, and uses the transport network, which could be an overlay network, from a classifier to SF and from one SF to the next. 2. Regarding the following text, SFF needs to be worked in. The network overlay transport layer, refer to as the "Network", "Transport" and layers below in Figure 1, extends between the various SFs and is mostly transparent to the SFs themselves. It can leverage various overlay network technologies interconnecting SFs and allows establishment of service function paths (SFPs). 3. In figure 1, the SFF needs to be worked in. 4. In section 3, subpoint 1, the following text is incorrect wrt SFF -= there should not be a supposition that an SFC aware SF is co-resident with= an SFF An SFC-aware SF is one that understands the SFC encapsulation has the SFF component co-resident with the SF sub-component . 5. Also in section 3, suppoint 1, the following text is making an inco= rrect distinction about SFC-unaware SF wrt SFF and is stating that an SFC p= roxy MAY be required but in reality the architecture holds that an SFC prox= y MUST be utilized An SFC-unware SF is one that does not understand the SFC encapsulation (i.e. a legacy SF) and has to be accessed via an separate SFF and potentially an SFC proxy function. 6. Figure 2 must work in the SFFs. 7. Section 3.1.1 states that SF's are monitored indirectly by monitori= ng their SFF's. Does this mean that the SFF's necessarily forward OAM pac= kets to SF's or does it mean that the SFF's are performing some higher leve= l summarization/aggregation of SF health and intercepting OAM packets? In= other words, would SFC-aware SF's ever directly process OAM packets? Ad= ditionally, how do you handle cases where an SFC-aware SF is multiply homed= to more than one SFF? 8. Section 3.1.2 Service Function Performance - this states that loss = and delay are checked at an individual SF. Can we expand this to include = SFF's, too? Is this loss/delay characterization at an RSP level (thus acc= ounting for multiply homed SF's)? Also, consider adding misordering chara= cterization. 9. Section 3.2.2 - suggest adding misordering, too. 10. In section 4, please clarify the following sentence In order to support SFC and SF's, these functions have to be enhanced to operate a single SF to multiple SF's in an SFC and also multiple SFC's. 11. In section 4.1, the requirement to probe MTU size - what is the motiv= ation for including this vs. simply relying on layer 3 PMTU procedures? I= s the supposition that transport will not always be IP-layer? 12. In section 4.1, "verify the packet re-ordering and corruption" - Is t= his stating that OAM packets should be able to retrieve counts of corrupted= non-OAM packets from SF's and SFF's or that OAM packets can directly disce= rn corruption? Does it imply that a hash mac or similar must be applied = to every OAM packet? Every non-OAM packet? 13. In section 4.2, please clarify the following sentence: o Notifying the failure upon failure detection for other OAM functions to take appropriate action. 14. Section 4.4, Performance measurement. Suggest including SFF in the = descriptive text. 15. In section 5.1, table 1, suggest including SFF and classifier. 16. In section 5.3, the following statement implies that management of SF= C functions is different when these functions are virtualized. This isn't= strictly true. With virtualized SF and SFC, manageability of these functions has to be done programmatically. From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar= ) Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 8:12 PM To: sfc@ietf.org Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August = 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B2E8F39F9MBX021W3CA2exch_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Conditionally approve adoption, but w= ith significant and editorial issues that should be addressed first.

 

   Ron

 

 

1.   = ;    Regarding the following= excerpt, SFF’s should be explicitly mentioned.   The text,= “from one SF to the next” can not be contextualized without th= e SFF.

 

o  The service layer, refered to as the &quo= t;Service Layer" in Figure 1,

      consists of classifiers and SF= s, and uses the

      transport network, which could= be an overlay network, from a

      cla= ssifier to SF and from one SF to the next.

 

 

2.   = ;   Regarding the following text,= SFF needs to be worked in.

 

The network overlay transport layer, refer to as the "Ne= twork",

      "Transport" and laye= rs below in Figure 1, extends between the

      various SFs and is mostly tran= sparent to the SFs themselves.  It

      can leverage various overlay n= etwork technologies

      interconnecting SFs and allows= establishment of

 =      service function paths (SFPs).

&= nbsp;

3.   = ;   In figure 1, the SFF needs to= be worked in.

 

4.   = ;   In section 3, subpoint 1, the= following text is incorrect wrt SFF – there should not be a supposit= ion that an SFC aware SF is co-resident with an SFF

 

An SFC-aware SF is one that

   understands the SFC encapsulation has the SFF co= mponent co-resident with

   the SF sub-component = .

 

5.   = ;   Also in section 3, suppoint 1= , the following text is making an incorrect distinction about SFC-unaware S= F wrt SFF and is stating that an SFC proxy MAY be required but in reality the architecture holds that an SFC proxy MUST b= e utilized

An SFC-unware SF is one that does not understand

   the SFC encapsulation (i.e. a legacy SF) and has= to be accessed via an

 =   separate SFF and potentially an SFC proxy function.

 

6.      Figure 2 must work in the SFF= s.

 

7.   = ;   Section 3.1.1 states that SF&= #8217;s are monitored indirectly by monitoring their SFF’s. &nbs= p; Does this mean that the SFF’s necessarily forward OAM packets to SF’s or does it mean that the SFF’s are performing some higher= level summarization/aggregation of SF health and intercepting OAM packets?=    In other words, would SFC-aware SF’s ever directly proce= ss OAM packets?    Additionally, how do you handle cases whe= re an SFC-aware SF is multiply homed to more than one SFF?<= /p>

 

8.   = ;   Section 3.1.2 Service Functio= n Performance – this states that loss and delay are checked at an ind= ividual SF.   Can we expand this to include SFF’s, too?   Is this loss/delay characterization at an RSP level (thus= accounting for multiply homed SF’s)?   Also, consider addi= ng misordering characterization.

 

9.   = ;   Section 3.2.2 – suggest= adding misordering, too.

 

10.   In section 4, please clarify = the following sentence

 

In order to

   support SFC and SF's, these functions have to be= enhanced to operate

   a single SF to multiple SF's in an SFC and also = multiple SFC's.

 

11.   In section 4.1, the requireme= nt to probe MTU size – what is the motivation for including this vs. = simply relying on layer 3 PMTU procedures?   Is the supposition that transport will not always be IP-layer?<= /p>

 

12.   In section 4.1, “verify= the packet re-ordering and corruption” – Is this stating that = OAM packets should be able to retrieve counts of corrupted non-OAM packets from SF’s and SFF’s or that OAM packets can directly d= iscern corruption?    Does it imply that a hash mac or simil= ar must be applied to every OAM packet?   Every non-OAM packet?

 

13.   In section 4.2, please clarif= y the following sentence:

 

   o  Notifying the failure upon failure detec= tion for other OAM

      fun= ctions to take appropriate action.

 

14.   Section 4.4, Performance meas= urement.   Suggest including SFF in the descriptive text.

 

15.   In section 5.1, table 1, sugg= est including SFF and classifier.

 

16.   In section 5.3, the following= statement implies that management of SFC functions is different when these= functions are virtualized.   This isn’t strictly true.

 

With

   virtualized SF and SFC, manageability of these f= unctions has to be

   done programmatically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.o= rg] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 8:12 PM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework

 

Greetings WG:

 

This message begins a 2 week call for W= G adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/= draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015.

 

Please respond to the SFC mailing list = with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 

As always please note the following:

  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is expec= ted to modify the document’s content until there is WG consensus that= the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your reas= ons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues and w= e can begin a dialog about how best to address them.
    4. =

Finally, now is also a g= ood time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in li= ne with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, = 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to th= e chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

 

Jim & Thomas

--_000_CDF2F015F4429F458815ED2A6C2B6B0B2E8F39F9MBX021W3CA2exch_-- From nobody Tue Aug 4 07:34:35 2015 Return-Path: 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 BB4B61A024E for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 07:34:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 OqlrZ8wrUywM for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 07:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (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 9762F1A037C for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 07:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.63]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id BE0F45C90F0D4; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:31:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.48]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t74EVHID021473 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:31:17 GMT Received: from US70UWXCHMBA03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.9.242]) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.48]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:31:17 -0400 From: "Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)" To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzsI4odjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNg== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:31:16 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.3.150624 x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.18] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1E644C778281andrewdolganowalcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:34:26 -0000 --_000_D1E644C778281andrewdolganowalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support Andrew On 2015-08-03, 8:11 PM, "sfc on behalf of Jim Guichard (jguichar)" wrote: Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August = 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus tha= t the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just becau= se you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_D1E644C778281andrewdolganowalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support

Andrew

On 2015-08-03, 8:11 PM, "sfc on behalf of Jim Guichard (jguichar)= " wrote:

Greetings= WG:

This mess= age begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://dat= atracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015.

Please re= spond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or disapprova= l.

As always= please note the following:
  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is ex= pected to modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content.
  2. If you have objections to = adoption of the document, please state your reasons why, and explain what i= t would take to address your concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the = content, by all means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about ho= w best to address them.
Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that= applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG = participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you = are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware = of any relevant IPR.

Jim &= Thomas
 --_000_D1E644C778281andrewdolganowalcatellucentcom_-- From nobody Thu Aug 6 03:02:16 2015 Return-Path: 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 47FE41B2BE4 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:02:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 cm4at3P26rlD for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E2111B2BEE for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:02:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7765; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438855332; x=1440064932; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Aqf+hkN+9Xfpgl73ig6PDdPrbHaRkgwZFPfXtsTRrek=; b=iBAq4deGcZZxJEdK5sV4rJ2oj85IgKRq17XZQozO0IcYMOuDrLvHVw/T kIMI0fGKAL8cTPjGMd/QfX8F1JsjXkGyY5jcfpv8Hqy8W8+sxlD8dnTTZ sduFLStAD+UKnzKRUQl9MbT8/sTvX4GjAjkNRKGoH4JiUpaucbiPiJnUe M=; X-Files: signature.asc : 841 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BBAwA/L8NV/4YNJK1bgk5NVFoPBr0LCYF6AQmFeQKBRzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEDAQEBARpRCwULAgEIGC4nCyUCBA4FDogYCA3MewEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEik2BAoQmEQFNBAeDGIEUBZUBAYI5gVxph1iBR4QjkCGDZCaDfW+BDjqBBAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,622,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="18225855" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2015 10:02:10 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com (xch-aln-017.cisco.com [173.36.7.27]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t76A2ApY010148 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:02:11 GMT Received: from xch-aln-017.cisco.com (173.36.7.27) by XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com (173.36.7.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 05:02:10 -0500 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (173.37.183.85) by xch-aln-017.cisco.com (173.36.7.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 05:02:10 -0500 Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.3]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 05:02:09 -0500 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp3/FTYA Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:02:09 +0000 Message-ID: <703BAF2F-3395-4063-8265-C762BDE9AAC8@cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.12] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F8CDA93B-888D-41D4-BAEE-4F26B95E3393"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 10:02:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F8CDA93B-888D-41D4-BAEE-4F26B95E3393 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FD992BDB-1943-4604-8B27-6087D0B1970D" --Apple-Mail=_FD992BDB-1943-4604-8B27-6087D0B1970D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Jim, Thomas, I support adoption, as co-author. I am not aware of any IPR related to draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework. I believe we still need to work out some terminology usage in this = draft, but nothing better than WG adoption to focus on it. This document = presents a solid start for the WG to compile all the OAM threads in a = reference framework. Thanks, =97 Carlos. > On Aug 4, 2015, at 2:11 AM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) = wrote: >=20 > Greetings WG: >=20 > This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ = = ending 17th August 2015. >=20 > Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval = or disapproval. >=20 > As always please note the following: > This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus = that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just = because you want to see changes to its content. > If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your = reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. > If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. > Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that = applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for = WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). = If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to = the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. >=20 > Jim & Thomas > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc --Apple-Mail=_FD992BDB-1943-4604-8B27-6087D0B1970D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Jim, Thomas,

I support adoption, as co-author.

I am not aware of any IPR related = to draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework.

I believe we still need to work out = some terminology usage in this draft, but nothing better than WG = adoption to focus on it. This document presents a solid start for the WG = to compile all the OAM threads in a reference framework.

Thanks,

=97 Carlos.

On Aug 4, 2015, at 2:11 AM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) <jguichar@cisco.com> = wrote:

Greetings WG:

This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the = document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework= / ending 17th August 2015.

Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of = approval or disapproval.

As always please note the following:
  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, = and the WG is expected to modify the document=92s content until there is = WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose = adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please = state your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your = concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all = means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to = address them.
Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge = of any IPR that applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure = obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for = more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or not you are = aware of any relevant IPR.

Jim & Thomas
_______________________________________________
sfc = mailing list
sfc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

= --Apple-Mail=_FD992BDB-1943-4604-8B27-6087D0B1970D-- --Apple-Mail=_F8CDA93B-888D-41D4-BAEE-4F26B95E3393 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVwjDKAAoJEIXgpQGOZny9vZgQAK3pPj3K9uydIHUIkLp9do10 4PilPGf15u6NUlny9jXulefLckG1A5hzl+gvtzn0D/zQEUTSndjzhiCUnog9Ghd6 kiorLHYh9cnx0C0jyBl8EEv0oT4aAh7NKUNm95NTOnOqdfiWFk1zT++JulV26EK9 zPBZqyzf8AvQ0fZKCFTIMd1WUZpaROpY0doEMi/q2QH6x711ovvP3RRwnOJaOIHQ YrmjMJGgkyFQa9QJ1LMTeoAWQ8U7KIubnvSF98BXDohgbkx8BZ48k4dCiGyH0apK OzVlO8Jn5INKaO+KX8W5WRMCcQuCTHISQahIaodkq3UH4qG8C/47TobZ+U5KhVTS infesJmFNjtpQarvl9pnVUxCH1W7CwYsU106rmgH6q8oasU2iHlzGR59qrTXFNA2 VOuQRMj5mXxXJPNQQBfE7EIsvrbblHpk3KEs+tUVioaTRGvNEp9y9drXye1zMbPQ nXut8wbR/R6kN19s/Z+AuYgDdHg99Zb/cRfbLbiJn85Mn5HnAO23DiKguzco5gZR bAQcbikFPw96LYEWPduFvRdpESeS1zyOZYlPveP26kY0X6VmTZvVcIkEG0oShFZV w0uAwy8ksVmMU4AhyjVkDoxMg6GI6b//fXWcrDWg0CQCT/BaAQyz1WFN0FGgm8Ot PHnqolqzQcymMxdTV94x =fkCC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_F8CDA93B-888D-41D4-BAEE-4F26B95E3393-- From nobody Thu Aug 6 13:12:37 2015 Return-Path: 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 A003B1A9050; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:12:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ZvMwgsgh7Nm3; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1961A92E2; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150806201229.32536.10118.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 13:12:29 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sfc chair , sfc mailing list , RFC Editor Subject: [sfc] Document Action: 'Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-11.txt) X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 20:12:35 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture' (draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-11.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Service Function Chaining Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah Brungard. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-architecture/ Technical Summary This document describes an architecture for the specification, creation, and ongoing maintenance of Service Function Chains (SFC) in a network. It includes architectural concepts, principles, and components used in the construction of composite services through deployment of SFCs, with a focus on those to be standardized in the IETF. This document does not propose solutions, protocols, or extensions to existing protocols as these will be addressed in other documents produced by the SFC WG. Note that the selected architecture presents a model addressing the problematic aspects of existing service deployments, including topological independence and configuration complexity as laid out in the SFC WG problem statement document. Working Group Summary This document has been reviewed multiple times by many participants in the working group and has undergone several revisions to integrate all aspects requested of the SFC architecture. The document is also the product of a merge of multiple previous documents. Document Quality There was a lot of discussion and reviews of the draft by the WG. It had plenty of focused attention. Personnel Document Shepherd: Jim Guichard Responsible AD: Alia Atlas From nobody Thu Aug 6 20:45:42 2015 Return-Path: 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 4D8AB1B41D7 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:45:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 tbOKsEYFd3IO for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ausxipps310.us.dell.com (AUSXIPPS310.us.dell.com [143.166.148.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF4CB1B41CA for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:45:34 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=smtpout; d=dell.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-LoopCount0:X-IronPort-AV:From:To:CC:Date:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:acceptlanguage: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=KkBz8adWIfLCSWxyDLvjIZgZ18F7PFDulV5D4DbiuzMGVnrK4Lp1k9Z6 asjkSssXc6svil6FqN5rdcBtqwHovf1G2YSQ3tmN5+XkILPcaXQWyNBi4 U+NUsSHgZNnHXGakDlvXQ3jvkT06OWS0cmvBbeIGEAwcVBzNSsrL9fYqg U=; X-LoopCount0: from 10.170.28.39 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,627,1432616400"; d="scan'208,217";a="211227879" From: To: , Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 22:45:30 -0500 Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp3/FTYAgADVCTA= Message-ID: References: <703BAF2F-3395-4063-8265-C762BDE9AAC8@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <703BAF2F-3395-4063-8265-C762BDE9AAC8@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DF91EBC32A031943A8B78D81D40122BC0401E429C9AUSX7MCPC103A_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: sfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 03:45:41 -0000 --_000_DF91EBC32A031943A8B78D81D40122BC0401E429C9AUSX7MCPC103A_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I also support as co-author. I am not aware of any related IPR. Thanks, Ramki From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Pignataro (cpig= nata) Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 3:02 AM To: Jim Guichard (jguichar) Cc: sfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Jim, Thomas, I support adoption, as co-author. I am not aware of any IPR related to draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework. I believe we still need to work out some terminology usage in this draft, b= ut nothing better than WG adoption to focus on it. This document presents a= solid start for the WG to compile all the OAM threads in a reference frame= work. Thanks, - Carlos. On Aug 4, 2015, at 2:11 AM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) > wrote: Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August = 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is e= xpected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that t= he content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because = you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your = reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues a= nd we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas _______________________________________________ sfc mailing list sfc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc --_000_DF91EBC32A031943A8B78D81D40122BC0401E429C9AUSX7MCPC103A_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I also supp= ort as co-author. I am not aware of any related IPR.

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F49= 7D'>Thanks,

Ramki=

 

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf O= f Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015= 3:02 AM
To: Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Cc: sfc@ietf.orgSubject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>Jim, Thomas,

 

I support adoption, as c= o-author.

 

I am not aware of any IPR related to = ;draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework.

 

I believe we still= need to work out some terminology usage in this draft, but nothing better = than WG adoption to focus on it. This document presents a solid start for t= he WG to compile all the OAM threads in a reference framework.

 

Thanks,

&nb= sp;

— Carlos.

=

 

On Aug = 4, 2015, at 2:11 AM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) <jguichar@cisco.com> wrote:

 

Greetings WG:<= o:p>

 

This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of th= e document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-fra= mework/ ending 17th August 2015.

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

Please respon= d to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 

As always please note the following:

  1. This is not a WG las= t call. The document is not final, and the WG is expected to modify the doc= ument’s content until there is WG consensus that the content is solid= . Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see cha= nges to its content.
  2. = If you ha= ve objections to adoption of the document, please state your reasons why, a= nd explain what it would take to address your concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all means= raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address the= m.

Finally, now is als= o a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, = in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3= 979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document= author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or not you are= aware of any relevant IPR.

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> = ;

Jim & Thomas=

______________________________________= _________
sfc mailing list
sfc@ietf.o= rg
https://www= .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

= --_000_DF91EBC32A031943A8B78D81D40122BC0401E429C9AUSX7MCPC103A_-- From nobody Fri Aug 7 01:27:20 2015 Return-Path: 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 A77481A8924 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 01:27:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 FvRQaXHRYNSX for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 01:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B2C61A8906 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 01:27:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12685; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438936035; x=1440145635; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=sXDjLWAwgd4HAVNuogmzWZoiIFWIKKUFrWQdIURx9gE=; b=JYUecFXejZ7tw2x1UubajHgM5cxUlWrbpiku5vSmgbjWSPVCm3ImFpLf R21Nyui6h0iIxAHxxtSqfGq7MgGIrxj1scGq3vWsgxiRe8CBRDdAAX3FJ 0g+Y8m+83BLg6Wm/joqTPlJ/hVvvlR6rTeSv1/G05g/vLNHM+geHbavTz 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A7AwAqa8RV/5NdJa1bgk5NVGkGvRkJggSFeQKBQDgUAQEBAQEBAX8LhCMBAQEEHRBBCxACAQgRBAEBCx0HMhQJCAIEDgUIiCYNzVIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBItPhCYRASAtBAYBBoMSgRQFlQcBhH6JIYQjgxeND4NkJoN9b4EOOoEEAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.15,629,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="16646767" Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2015 08:27:14 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (xch-aln-018.cisco.com [173.36.7.28]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t778RElC024296 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:27:14 GMT Received: from xch-aln-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 03:27:13 -0500 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (173.37.183.76) by xch-aln-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 03:27:13 -0500 Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.17]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 03:27:13 -0500 From: "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" To: "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4ANV6Q Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:27:13 +0000 Message-ID: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD261614C4@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.95.232] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD261614C4xmbrcdx01ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "Jim Guichard \(jguichar\)" , "Carlos Pignataro \(cpignata\)" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:27:18 -0000 --_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD261614C4xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I read the draft and I support the adoption of this document as a WG docume= nt. I have a question on section 3.3 "Monitoring the Classifier": "SFC OAM must be able to test the definition of flows and the mapping functionality to expected SFCs" Is testing the mapping of flows to SFCs an OAM function? As far as I know there are no classical/standard tools to perform such test= . In my opinion if you consider the monitoring of classifier an OAM function= , it should be included in the gap analysis as missing functions in section= 5. Thanks Roberta From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar= ) Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 2:12 AM To: sfc@ietf.org Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August = 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD261614C4xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,<= /p>

I read the draft and I su= pport the adoption of this document as a WG document.

 <= /p>

I have a question on sect= ion 3.3 “Monitoring the Classifier”:

“SFC OAM must be able to test =
the definition of

   flows and the mapping functionality to expect= ed SFCs”

 

Is testing the mapping of= flows to SFCs an OAM function?

As far as I know there ar= e no classical/standard tools to perform such test.

In  my opinion if yo= u consider the monitoring of classifier an OAM function, it should be inclu= ded in the gap analysis as missing functions in section 5.

 <= /p>

Thanks<= /p>

Roberta=

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: sfc [mai= lto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 2:12 AM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework

 

Greetings WG:

 

This message begins a 2 wee= k call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/= doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015.

 

Please respond to the SFC m= ailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 

As always please note the f= ollowing:

  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the= WG is expected to modify the document’s content until there is WG co= nsensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.<= /o:p>
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please sta= te your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concern= s.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those = issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.=

Finally, now is also a g= ood time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in li= ne with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, = 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to th= e chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

 

Jim & Thomas=

--_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD261614C4xmbrcdx01ciscoc_-- From nobody Fri Aug 7 02:29:42 2015 Return-Path: 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 27BAD1ACECB for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 02:29:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 2ag7i75zUjTj for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 02:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8E441ACEC6 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 02:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17266180158A; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:29:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55C47A7D.7040106@pi.nu> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:29:33 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" , "sfc@ietf.org" References: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD261614C4@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD261614C4@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "Jim Guichard \(jguichar\)" , "Carlos Pignataro \(cpignata\)" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:29:41 -0000 WG, Read the draft and support the adoption as a wg document. /Loa On 2015-08-07 10:27, Roberta Maglione (robmgl) wrote: > Hello, > > I read the draft and I support the adoption of this document as a WG > document. > > I have a question on section 3.3 “Monitoring the Classifier”: > > “SFC OAM must be able to test the definition of > > flows and the mapping functionality to expected SFCs” > > Is testing the mapping of flows to SFCs an OAM function? > > As far as I know there are no classical/standard tools to perform such test. > > In my opinion if you consider the monitoring of classifier an OAM > function, it should be included in the gap analysis as missing functions > in section 5. > > Thanks > > Roberta > > *From:*sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Jim Guichard > (jguichar) > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 04, 2015 2:12 AM > *To:* sfc@ietf.org > *Subject:* [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework > > Greetings WG: > > This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending > 17th August 2015. > > Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval > or disapproval. > > As always please note the following: > > 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is > expected to modify the document’s content until there is WG > consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose > adoption just because you want to see changes to its content. > 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state > your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your > concerns. > 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues > and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. > > Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that > applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for > WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to > the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > > Jim & Thomas > > > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > From nobody Fri Aug 7 02:41:42 2015 Return-Path: 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 B46471AD49D for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 02:41:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.76 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 bUbZR1_O_rzz for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 02:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960A31ACEF7 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 02:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BZP47986; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:41:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:41:35 +0100 Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.210]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:41:28 +0800 From: "Zhulei (MBB Research)" To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4ATAyA Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:41:27 +0000 Message-ID: <470F27D1263A1B4EB73491ED995DE6252A2549B5@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.65.38] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_470F27D1263A1B4EB73491ED995DE6252A2549B5NKGEML512MBSchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:41:41 -0000 --_000_470F27D1263A1B4EB73491ED995DE6252A2549B5NKGEML512MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 QXBvbG9naXplIG5vdCB0byByZXBseSBlYXJsaWVyLiBXaWxsIHN1cHBvcnQgdG8gYWRvcHRpb24g b2YgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudC4NCg0KQXMgd2hhdCB3ZSBkaXNjdXNzZWQsIFNGQyBPQU0gaXMgYSBw cm9ibGVtIHRvIGFkZHJlc3Mgd2l0aGluIFNGQyBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUuIFdoYXQgZXZlbiBtZW50 aW9uZWQgaXQgaW4gU0ZDIGFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHN0aWxsIGFy Y2hpdGVjdHVyYWwgaXNzdWVzIGZvciBPQU0gcHJvYmxlbXMgdG8gaWxsdXN0cmF0ZSBpbiBhbiBh c3BlY3QgZG9jdW1lbnQuIFNvLCBhIHN1cHBvcnQgdG8gYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMg dGhlIGVzc2VudGlhbCBzdGVwIHRvIG1vdmUgb24gdGhlIHdvcmtzIHRvIGNvbnRlbnQuDQoNCkJl c3QgcmVnYXJkcywNClpodSBMZWkNCkh1YXdlaSBUZWNobm9sb2dpZXMuDQoNCreivP7Iyzogc2Zj IFttYWlsdG86c2ZjLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddILT6se0gSmltIEd1aWNoYXJkIChqZ3VpY2hh cikNCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE1xOo41MI0yNUgODoxMg0KytW8/sjLOiBzZmNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCtb3 zOI6IFtzZmNdIFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWFsZHJpbi1zZmMtb2FtLWZyYW1ld29yaw0K DQpHcmVldGluZ3MgV0c6DQoNClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBiZWdpbnMgYSAyIHdlZWsgY2FsbCBmb3Ig V0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcv ZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWFsZHJpbi1zZmMtb2FtLWZyYW1ld29yay8gZW5kaW5nIDE3dGggQXVndXN0IDIw MTUuDQoNClBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvIHRoZSBTRkMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0IHdpdGggYW55IHN0 YXRlbWVudHMgb2YgYXBwcm92YWwgb3IgZGlzYXBwcm92YWwuDQoNCkFzIGFsd2F5cyBwbGVhc2Ug bm90ZSB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nOg0KDQogIDEuICBUaGlzIGlzIG5vdCBhIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbC4g VGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIG5vdCBmaW5hbCwgYW5kIHRoZSBXRyBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBtb2Rp ZnkgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50oa9zIGNvbnRlbnQgdW50aWwgdGhlcmUgaXMgV0cgY29uc2Vuc3VzIHRo YXQgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQgaXMgc29saWQuIFRoZXJlZm9yZSwgcGxlYXNlIGRvIG5vdCBvcHBvc2Ug YWRvcHRpb24ganVzdCBiZWNhdXNlIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIHNlZSBjaGFuZ2VzIHRvIGl0cyBjb250 ZW50Lg0KICAyLiAgSWYgeW91IGhhdmUgb2JqZWN0aW9ucyB0byBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9j dW1lbnQsIHBsZWFzZSBzdGF0ZSB5b3VyIHJlYXNvbnMgd2h5LCBhbmQgZXhwbGFpbiB3aGF0IGl0 IHdvdWxkIHRha2UgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB5b3VyIGNvbmNlcm5zLg0KICAzLiAgSWYgeW91IGhhdmUg aXNzdWVzIHdpdGggdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQsIGJ5IGFsbCBtZWFucyByYWlzZSB0aG9zZSBpc3N1ZXMg YW5kIHdlIGNhbiBiZWdpbiBhIGRpYWxvZyBhYm91dCBob3cgYmVzdCB0byBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZW0u DQpGaW5hbGx5LCBub3cgaXMgYWxzbyBhIGdvb2QgdGltZSB0byBwb2xsIGZvciBrbm93bGVkZ2Ug b2YgYW55IElQUiB0aGF0IGFwcGxpZXMgdG8gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCwgaW4gbGluZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBJ UFIgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBvYmxpZ2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgV0cgcGFydGljaXBhbnRzIChzZWUgUkZDcyAz OTc5LCA0ODc5LCAzNjY5IGFuZCA1Mzc4IGZvciBtb3JlIGRldGFpbHMpLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIGxp c3RlZCBhcyBhIGRvY3VtZW50IGF1dGhvciBwbGVhc2UgcmVzcG9uZCB0byB0aGlzIGVtYWlsICh0 byB0aGUgY2hhaXJzKSB3aGV0aGVyIG9yIG5vdCB5b3UgYXJlIGF3YXJlIG9mIGFueSByZWxldmFu dCBJUFIuDQoNCkppbSAmIFRob21hcw0K --_000_470F27D1263A1B4EB73491ED995DE6252A2549B5NKGEML512MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Apologize = not to reply earlier. Will support to adoption of this document.=

 = ;

As what we= discussed, SFC OAM is a problem to address within SFC architecture. What e= ven mentioned it in SFC architecture document, there are still architectural issues for OAM problems to illustrate in an aspect document.= So, a support to adoption of document is the essential step to move on the= works to content.

 = ;

Best regar= ds,

Zhu Lei

Huawei Tec= hnologies.

 = ;

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounc= es@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED = Jim Guichard (jguichar)
=B7=A2=CB=CD= =CA=B1=BC=E4: 2015=C4=EA8=D4=C2<= span lang=3D"EN-US">4=C8=D5 8:12
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: sfc@ietf.org
=D6=F7=CC=E2: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework

 

Greetings WG= :

 <= /o:p>

This message= begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://datatr= acker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015.

 <= /o:p>

Please respo= nd to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.<= o:p>

 <= /o:p>

As always pl= ease note the following:

  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not= final, and the WG is expected to modify the document=A1=AFs content until = there is WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content= .
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the docum= ent, please state your reasons why, and explain what it would take to addre= ss your concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all mea= ns raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address t= hem.

Finally, = now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to th= is draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (= see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to th= is email (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.<= o:p>

 <= /o:p>

Jim & Th= omas

--_000_470F27D1263A1B4EB73491ED995DE6252A2549B5NKGEML512MBSchi_-- From nobody Fri Aug 7 06:16:57 2015 Return-Path: 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 5F8391B2CA1 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 06:16:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.06 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.06 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, 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 trmiTLWG5xXK for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 06:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85FFD1B2CA0 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 06:16:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9396; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438953414; x=1440163014; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=xBy4giHQSe15EMRRxjmdZzTqf53MigR4bc5GmZwBf6I=; b=b2wFST1T7P3eFTcXM8IT6yAXCDZL5kLhSKgl2iHpXgTg0o4oQIKXIkeq G75dnE0RUkUMxAUPnUNMpFQCng2xaYPoaAOOqglal2jda3vJn8wkk4Ztp sxdoO87U2zPWkkrOvl5eO6d4SEj18mVnew3WU52xQHciaOfbYMDd4USPe g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CiAwAxr8RV/51dJa1bgk5NVGkGgx26AAmCBIV5AhyBIDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCQCBB1RHQEGAj8FBDAUEQIEARKILg2aPZ0VCJYbAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBAQEYBItPhCYRATYXCgGCZYFHBZUIAYR/h1yBR4QjkCaDZSaDfW+BDjqBBAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.15,630,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="16706456" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2015 13:16:53 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com (xch-aln-013.cisco.com [173.36.7.23]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t77DGr1M018297 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:16:53 GMT Received: from xch-aln-013.cisco.com (173.36.7.23) by XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com (173.36.7.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:16:52 -0500 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (173.36.12.84) by xch-aln-013.cisco.com (173.36.7.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:16:52 -0500 Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.7.75]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:16:52 -0500 From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4ATAyAgABO04A= Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:16:51 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <470F27D1263A1B4EB73491ED995DE6252A2549B5@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913 x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.19] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1EA26B964979naikumarciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 13:16:56 -0000 --_000_D1EA26B964979naikumarciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQpIaSwNCg0KSSBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBhcyBXRyBkb2N1bWVudC4NCg0KVGhhbmtz LA0KTmFnZW5kcmENCg0Kt6K8/sjLOiBzZmMgW21haWx0bzpzZmMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10g tPqx7SBKaW0gR3VpY2hhcmQgKGpndWljaGFyKQ0Kt6LLzcqxvOQ6IDIwMTXE6jjUwjTI1SA4OjEy DQrK1bz+yMs6IHNmY0BpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86c2ZjQGlldGYub3JnPg0K1vfM4jogW3NmY10g V0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQtYWxkcmluLXNmYy1vYW0tZnJhbWV3b3JrDQoNCkdyZWV0aW5n cyBXRzoNCg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGJlZ2lucyBhIDIgd2VlayBjYWxsIGZvciBXRyBhZG9wdGlv biBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQt YWxkcmluLXNmYy1vYW0tZnJhbWV3b3JrLyBlbmRpbmcgMTd0aCBBdWd1c3QgMjAxNS4NCg0KUGxl YXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gdGhlIFNGQyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qgd2l0aCBhbnkgc3RhdGVtZW50cyBv ZiBhcHByb3ZhbCBvciBkaXNhcHByb3ZhbC4NCg0KQXMgYWx3YXlzIHBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoZSBm b2xsb3dpbmc6DQoNCiAgMS4gIFRoaXMgaXMgbm90IGEgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsLiBUaGUgZG9jdW1l bnQgaXMgbm90IGZpbmFsLCBhbmQgdGhlIFdHIGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvIG1vZGlmeSB0aGUgZG9j dW1lbnShr3MgY29udGVudCB1bnRpbCB0aGVyZSBpcyBXRyBjb25zZW5zdXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgY29u dGVudCBpcyBzb2xpZC4gVGhlcmVmb3JlLCBwbGVhc2UgZG8gbm90IG9wcG9zZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBq dXN0IGJlY2F1c2UgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8gc2VlIGNoYW5nZXMgdG8gaXRzIGNvbnRlbnQuDQogIDIu ICBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBvYmplY3Rpb25zIHRvIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgcGxl YXNlIHN0YXRlIHlvdXIgcmVhc29ucyB3aHksIGFuZCBleHBsYWluIHdoYXQgaXQgd291bGQgdGFr ZSB0byBhZGRyZXNzIHlvdXIgY29uY2VybnMuDQogIDMuICBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBpc3N1ZXMgd2l0 aCB0aGUgY29udGVudCwgYnkgYWxsIG1lYW5zIHJhaXNlIHRob3NlIGlzc3VlcyBhbmQgd2UgY2Fu IGJlZ2luIGEgZGlhbG9nIGFib3V0IGhvdyBiZXN0IHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgdGhlbS4NCkZpbmFsbHks IG5vdyBpcyBhbHNvIGEgZ29vZCB0aW1lIHRvIHBvbGwgZm9yIGtub3dsZWRnZSBvZiBhbnkgSVBS IHRoYXQgYXBwbGllcyB0byB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBpbiBsaW5lIHdpdGggdGhlIElQUiBkaXNjbG9z dXJlIG9ibGlnYXRpb25zIGZvciBXRyBwYXJ0aWNpcGFudHMgKHNlZSBSRkNzIDM5NzksIDQ4Nzks IDM2NjkgYW5kIDUzNzggZm9yIG1vcmUgZGV0YWlscykuIElmIHlvdSBhcmUgbGlzdGVkIGFzIGEg ZG9jdW1lbnQgYXV0aG9yIHBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgKHRvIHRoZSBjaGFp cnMpIHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IHlvdSBhcmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IHJlbGV2YW50IElQUi4NCg0K SmltICYgVGhvbWFzDQo= --_000_D1EA26B964979naikumarciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-ID: <3299287A60B2594A883D06DD4625DB13@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

I support the adoption as WG document.

Thanks,
Nagendra

 <= /span>

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED = Jim Guichard (jguichar)
=B7=A2=CB=CD= =CA=B1=BC=E4: 2015=C4=EA8=D4=C2<= span lang=3D"EN-US">4=C8=D5 8:12
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: sfc@ietf.org
=D6=F7=CC=E2: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework

 

Greetings WG:

 

This message begins a 2 week = call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/do= c/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015.

 

Please respond to the SFC mai= ling list with any statements of approval or disapproval.=

 

As always please note the fol= lowing:

  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG = is expected to modify the document=A1=AFs content until there is WG consens= us that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its = content.
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state y= our reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issu= es and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.

Finally, = now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to th= is draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (= see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to th= is email (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.<= o:p>

 

Jim & Thomas

 --_000_D1EA26B964979naikumarciscocom_-- From nobody Fri Aug 7 08:00:55 2015 Return-Path: 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 0E39B1B2D8E for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:00:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 M4ky4kbQNJhO for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E3601B2D7B for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pabyb7 with SMTP id yb7so57626331pab.0 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:00:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=fJCLnyb0igIP27hP8oEVEGnaqHoGoJHi/SfgniHxMH8=; b=gW8AHrWu+n0RfbkWFO9sz+cF1QN9I9eG9zvoZ4ubUiyr5eQ1BAenWLQQfizDOoeWNU bWtnU1z3LVB29E134GObtIAACedpcha2gsbDsrA59FWjz/CejYY49CNKAlH+vHyddjlm +EGrQ+ScQFRA16LUvvzbL3JOYXi2Y8QJ6uq48p+pHQTCa3+Jha9j0sxJFSRnTOahIprW dNS+KKxvMnUU101mX44wXLwEqWu0rWQs9ElG4pHS+PMfcZXETpPKe5kGqJ2OpjOtmMtp 21N/CQNcrQQ7Iaw1QEHxgE4Hi6G+RV0qIQRCsBfmjRbR1Jx17vLWePIQH04rwm2hs9xI srYg== X-Received: by 10.66.55.41 with SMTP id o9mr15491359pap.148.1438959650734; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (c-73-189-176-93.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.189.176.93]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fe8sm270686pab.40.2015.08.07.08.00.49 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F01EEA49-94C8-4D8C-A16A-820668A04212" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Sam Aldrin In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:00:48 -0700 Message-Id: References: To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:00:54 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F01EEA49-94C8-4D8C-A16A-820668A04212 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 This document provides a framework for the solution document, which were = already being published. Hence, I support this document to be adopted as WG document. I am a co-author on this and not aware of any IPR related to this = document. cheers -sam > On Aug 3, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) = wrote: >=20 > Greetings WG: >=20 > This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ = = ending 17th August 2015. >=20 > Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval = or disapproval. >=20 > As always please note the following: > This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus = that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just = because you want to see changes to its content. > If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your = reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. > If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. > Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that = applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for = WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). = If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to = the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. >=20 > Jim & Thomas > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc --Apple-Mail=_F01EEA49-94C8-4D8C-A16A-820668A04212 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 This document provides a framework for the solution document, = which were already being published.
Hence, I support this = document to be adopted as WG document.
I am a co-author = on this and not aware of any IPR related to this document.

cheers
-sam



On = Aug 3, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) <jguichar@cisco.com> = wrote:

Greetings WG:

This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the = document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework= / ending 17th August 2015.

Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of = approval or disapproval.

As always please note the following:
  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, = and the WG is expected to modify the document=92s content until there is = WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose = adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please = state your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your = concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all = means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to = address them.
Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge = of any IPR that applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure = obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for = more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or not you are = aware of any relevant IPR.

Jim & Thomas
_______________________________________________
sfc = mailing list
sfc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

= --Apple-Mail=_F01EEA49-94C8-4D8C-A16A-820668A04212-- From nobody Fri Aug 7 19:24:44 2015 Return-Path: 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 DE27C1AD0BA for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 19:24:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 yKl-fNRoi6bE for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 19:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA5C1A8781 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 19:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BWA01645; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 02:24:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 03:24:36 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.99]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 10:24:28 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4AIP8AgAFEOWA= Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 02:24:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.180] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84807CAFnkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 02:24:43 -0000 --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84807CAFnkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support. I believe this draft will lay foundation for solution work. -Qin On Aug 3, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) > wrote: Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August = 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas _______________________________________________ sfc mailing list sfc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84807CAFnkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support= . I believe this draft will lay foundation for solution work.

 = ;

-Qin<= /o:p>

On Aug 3, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Jim= Guichard (jguichar) <jguichar@cis= co.com> wrote:

 

Greetings WG:=

 =

This message begins a 2 = week call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.o= rg/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015.

 =

Please respond to the SF= C mailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 =

As always please note th= e following:

  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not= final, and the WG is expected to modify the document’s content until= there is WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content= .
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the docum= ent, please state your reasons why, and explain what it would take to addre= ss your concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all mea= ns raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address t= hem.

Finally, now is also a good tim= e to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in line with= the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3= 669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chair= s) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

 =

Jim & Thomas

_______________________________= ________________
sfc mailing list
sfc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/sfc

 

--_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84807CAFnkgeml501mbschi_-- From nobody Sun Aug 9 17:07:43 2015 Return-Path: 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 E277E1B2FB4 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:07:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 M3PYG-K0Rwma for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2912C1B2FAC for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so18410365wic.1 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=boRf6NpppUqXhFH8oTM+l2TBP8ww36h5OwPMW9xRrIc=; b=uXV+y0kMJ6blFasF8CfHel0EcaERhucM0+ByhqS9pg8QYs3QY2kyEzxV7Yq9rSoRxn b0KXJ/RU5RRd84fgz0xSo+8Q9Xuf9pOIUqmMQX395RiJ4QioJ5BC7ODlQ++RabN5jc8r SSh9ICZfXLVlaHqNJyL+tpVJkWmDwWy/SrK+7VofFYAebS5mn38zCFBY3Zfjl3fy2OzN KM4n+2/51QHjLvkgax6yODWuFM/3G8gY83N5iZeElBjFgj4O03GQ/12FuTrxlDOox9Uk GtUjHmECeN/kP5XBXABupov54ZrfnRvvU0GGYdUq4rNFwB6Wucjw8x4yNdmacjqBLe6r ZJgA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.198.50 with SMTP id iz18mr19202224wic.35.1439165258948; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 17:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: ghanwani@gmail.com Received: by 10.27.23.79 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:07:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:07:38 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: h79HjJXtk0ToznQsvY9BABFekjQ Message-ID: From: Anoop Ghanwani To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b62497c0865f9051ce9c612 Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:07:42 -0000 --047d7b62497c0865f9051ce9c612 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support (as co-author) and I'm not aware of any IPR. Anoop On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) wrote: > Greetings WG: > > This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending > 17th August 2015. > > Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or > disapproval. > > As always please note the following: > > 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG > is expected to modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG= consensus > that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption ju= st > because you want to see changes to its content. > 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state > your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your conce= rns. > 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those > issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. > > Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that > applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG > participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If yo= u > are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the > chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > > Jim & Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > > --047d7b62497c0865f9051ce9c612 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support (as co-author) and I'm not aware of any IPR.
Anoop

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) <= span dir=3D"ltr"><jguichar@cisco.com> wrote:
Greetings WG:<= /div>

This message b= egins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document=C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/=C2= =A0ending 17th August 2015.

Please respond= to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

As always plea= se note the following:
  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is ex= pected to modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus= that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just b= ecause you want to see changes to its content.
  2. If you have objectio= ns to adoption of the document, please state your reasons why, and explain = what it would take to address your concerns.
  3. If you have issues wit= h the content, by all means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog ab= out how best to address them.
Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that= applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG = participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you = are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware = of any relevant IPR.

Jim & Thom= as

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
sfc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc


--047d7b62497c0865f9051ce9c612-- From nobody Mon Aug 10 01:32:44 2015 Return-Path: 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 4C4941B333B for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 01:32:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Q58V0kMgfXO9 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 01:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78E081A6FBB for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 01:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BWB55211; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:32:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([10.125.30.101]) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.201.5.241]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:31:46 +0100 From: Georgios Karagiannis To: Sam Aldrin , "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4AllcAgARabzA= Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:31:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.76.195] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153D4CDlhreml502mbs_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:32:43 -0000 --_000_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153D4CDlhreml502mbs_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Please note that I have read the document and I support the SFC WG adoption= of this draft. Best regards, Georgios From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam Aldrin Sent: 07 August 2015 17:01 To: Jim Guichard (jguichar) Cc: sfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework This document provides a framework for the solution document, which were al= ready being published. Hence, I support this document to be adopted as WG document. I am a co-author on this and not aware of any IPR related to this document. cheers -sam On Aug 3, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) > wrote: Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August = 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas _______________________________________________ sfc mailing list sfc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc --_000_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153D4CDlhreml502mbs_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,=

 <= /p>

Please note that I have r= ead the document and I support the SFC WG adoption of this draft.

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

Best regards,<= /span>

Georgios

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: sfc [mai= lto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam Aldrin
Sent: 07 August 2015 17:01
To: Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Cc: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework

 

This document provides a framework for the solution = document, which were already being published.

Hence, I support this document to be adopted as WG d= ocument.

I am a co-author on this and not aware of any IPR re= lated to this document.

 

cheers

-sam

 

 

 

On Aug 3, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) = <jguichar@cisco.com> wrote:=

 

Greetings WG:

 

This message begins a 2 week call for W= G adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-al= drin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015.

 

Please respond to the SFC mailing list = with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 

As always please note the following:

  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the= WG is expected to modify the document’s content until there is WG co= nsensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.<= /o:p>
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please sta= te your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concern= s.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those = issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.=

Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowled= ge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure o= bligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more= details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or no= t you are aware of any relevant IPR.

 

Jim & Thomas

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
sfc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/sfc

 

--_000_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153D4CDlhreml502mbs_-- From nobody Wed Aug 12 09:49:19 2015 Return-Path: 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 5E3C61A9050 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:49:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 PkcjY3JfzF-m for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56D481A9029 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:49:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3498; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439398149; x=1440607749; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=455/n9/jKpS+EJZ5/0CypeOjFyoiQzXB/dQGvf0Z6wY=; b=VEBrmXLACCdx8DTcloBMyaaTvxR+W+5ENkSyg27Yv3iNWo3yzMfmjUq/ bwHIee3kO4i/bIKEwWHYtrZScpOqanxeUt2MoTCJqoorUdGgKZEoShdgH JwGGeuH/eKMpJN+k1jXhpDr9M/jKCsAgOVa+9UrpLHIn3oUA+Oe/1XmG9 U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AqAwDrd8tV/49dJa1dgk5NVG+9ZgmBdYV5gUo4FAEBAQEBAQF/C4QqHVEdAQx0JwSIQQ2qaKV+AQEIHgSPeREBTYQ3BZUTAYUDh2iBSoQnkDqDZiaDfYF/OoEEAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,662,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="177916459" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2015 16:49:07 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7CGn6XU028906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:49:06 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:49:05 -0500 Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (173.37.183.81) by xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:49:05 -0500 Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.17]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:49:05 -0500 From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" To: "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzA== Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:49:04 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117 x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.13] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1F0F1421FE8Djguicharciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:49:16 -0000 --_000_D1F0F1421FE8Djguicharciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015= . Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus tha= t the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just becau= se you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_D1F0F1421FE8Djguicharciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <89809257775CE84791DA911B1EF3C24D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings WG:

This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document = ;h= ttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending= 26th August 2015.

Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval= or disapproval.

As always please note the following:
  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is ex= pected to modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content.
  2. If you have objections to = adoption of the document, please state your reasons why, and explain what i= t would take to address your concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the = content, by all means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about ho= w best to address them.
Finally, now is als= o a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, = in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3= 979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this em= ail (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

Jim & Thomas
--_000_D1F0F1421FE8Djguicharciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Aug 12 09:56:44 2015 Return-Path: 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 EA01E1A902E for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:56:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 KHkO3Dv2UlUy for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C77F21A8AF8 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so120518205wic.1 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:56:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=GqUAxArcrFr53KJ6M6LCbOCNZQAsTdSgX2PAaUBuiIg=; b=nG+0WmECajMWdVFRXzsmhJWyh77POh/w0I7PKHEuIOoUhwV/Hpb8aVgw0JvN9d01zM C7AegRodWyx9TGBcxCCR2tXWIxwOaUvBsfPsz5ijUz+F9bkXnn/xtbV8InFUVx+4QkkQ lykCnSlI0DoBoqsB0Z0wGyj5wxp2WCwPMHN49KcimMMpknJY75zgUwpEV376gtoIErTT g5MDJmRpErLoceIg7kaLafMrX3YUeqxPfmCJ+tzvOgfRCCvtJrfM/4+maQo/6iVkaUI9 PkU5dvpSEqy1yXcXfWZ4E0fgA20Z3vNMmmmVXKw1lgfUpBx4ShEfUq89DADQ1+J6Di7m agqg== X-Received: by 10.194.89.72 with SMTP id bm8mr69933165wjb.116.1439398600539; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:56:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.211.68 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:56:21 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d868c4683a7051d201a6f Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:56:44 -0000 --089e010d868c4683a7051d201a6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jim, As a co-author, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft, and I'm in favor of its adoption by the WG. Thanks, Andy On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) < jguichar@cisco.com> wrote: > Greetings WG: > > This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th > August 2015. > > Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or > disapproval. > > As always please note the following: > > 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG > is expected to modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG= consensus > that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption ju= st > because you want to see changes to its content. > 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state > your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your conce= rns. > 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those > issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. > > Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that > applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG > participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If yo= u > are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the > chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > > Jim & Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > > --089e010d868c4683a7051d201a6f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jim,

As a co-author, I'm not aware = of any IPR that applies to this draft, and I'm in favor of its adoption= by the WG.

Thanks,
Andy

<= /div>

On Wed= , Aug 12, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) <<= a href=3D"mailto:jguichar@cisco.com" target=3D"_blank">jguichar@cisco.com> wrote:
Greetings WG:

This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document=C2= =A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-pl= ane/=C2=A0ending 26th August 2015.

Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval= or disapproval.

As always please note the following:
  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is ex= pected to modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus= that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just b= ecause you want to see changes to its content.
  2. If you have objectio= ns to adoption of the document, please state your reasons why, and explain = what it would take to address your concerns.
  3. If you have issues wit= h the content, by all means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog ab= out how best to address them.
Finally, now is also a = good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in l= ine with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979,= 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this em= ail (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

Jim & Thomas

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
sfc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc


--089e010d868c4683a7051d201a6f-- From nobody Wed Aug 12 10:05:35 2015 Return-Path: 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 4EE1B1A9063 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:05:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 LdydiOsn6RJC for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias245.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32DF31A8F4D for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 729071904A0; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:05:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.66]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 474ED158059; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:05:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::95e2:eb4b:3053:fabf%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:05:28 +0200 From: To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4Il4Tw Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:05:27 +0000 Message-ID: <7718_1439399128_55CB7CD8_7718_3848_1_88132E969123D14D9BD844E1CD516EDE0F633668@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_88132E969123D14D9BD844E1CD516EDE0F633668OPEXCLILMA3corp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.8.12.144516 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:05:34 -0000 --_000_88132E969123D14D9BD844E1CD516EDE0F633668OPEXCLILMA3corp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, As one of the co-authors, I support the adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-pl= ane as a sfc WG document. I'm unaware of any IPR pertaining to this documen= t. Cheers, Christian. De : sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jim Guichard (jguichar) Envoy=E9 : mercredi 12 ao=FBt 2015 18:49 =C0 : sfc@ietf.org Objet : [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. --_000_88132E969123D14D9BD844E1CD516EDE0F633668OPEXCLILMA3corp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

As one of the co-authors, I support the adop= tion of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane as a sfc WG document. I’m unaware = of any IPR pertaining to this document.

 

Cheers,

 

Christian.

 

De : sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Envoy=E9 : mercredi 12 ao=FBt 2015 18:49
=C0 : sfc@ietf.org
Objet : [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plan= e-06

 

Greetings WG:

 

This message begins a 2 wee= k call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/= draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015.

 

Please respond to the SFC m= ailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 

As always please note the f= ollowing:

  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the= WG is expected to modify the document’s content until there is WG co= nsensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.<= /o:p>
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please sta= te your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concern= s.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those = issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.=

Finally, now is also a good= time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in line = with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed a= s a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or= not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

 

Jim & Thomas= 

______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el=
ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--_000_88132E969123D14D9BD844E1CD516EDE0F633668OPEXCLILMA3corp_-- From nobody Wed Aug 12 10:11:40 2015 Return-Path: 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 0EE291A9148 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:11:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 qJYteRAEfIrI for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A69171A90EB for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3446D240C46; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:11:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DD51240141; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:11:35 -0700 (PDT) To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" References: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <55CB7E46.1010202@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:11:34 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:11:39 -0000 Yes, as a co-author I do not know of any applicable IPR, and I am looking forward to WG adoption. Yours, Joel On 8/12/15 12:56 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Jim, > > As a co-author, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft, and > I'm in favor of its adoption by the WG. > > Thanks, > Andy > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) > > wrote: > > Greetings WG: > > This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending > 26th August 2015. > > Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of > approval or disapproval. > > As always please note the following: > > 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the > WG is expected to modify the document’s content until there is > WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not > oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content. > 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state > your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your > concerns. > 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those > issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. > > Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR > that applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure > obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 > for more details). If you are listed as a document author please > respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware > of any relevant IPR. > > 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 > From nobody Wed Aug 12 13:07:38 2015 Return-Path: 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 CF5CA1ACD7E for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 UimnY071_woP for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827081ACD77 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WTL-EXCHP-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::ac6b:cc1e:f2ff:93aa]) by wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:07:30 -0400 From: Dave Dolson To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4I0g6Q Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:07:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.63] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830CB9754wtlexchp1sandvi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:07:37 -0000 --_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830CB9754wtlexchp1sandvi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm having trouble understanding what is being proposed as the framework. Currently it seems to be a list of requirements for a framework, not a fram= ework. Is that the intention? Rename it to "Requirements for OAM Frameworks" or "T= erminology for OAM Frameworks" ? There are also some inconsistencies that confuse me about the purpose of th= e document: On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including perform= ance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it says monitoring = "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". How could monitoring b= e meaningful without involving the SFs? So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band packets = or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely traverse the SFs. Other language indicates all ECMP paths must be traversed, which sounds lik= e in-band. SFs are claimed to be out of scope; however, figure 2 seems to show a contr= ol-plane protocol (SFCOAM) speaking directly to SFs. If this document is just about requirements, I could support adoption assum= ing the above issues can be clarified; otherwise as a framework I don't see= anything concrete yet, so I can't figure out where this is going. E.g., if the framework is intended to provide in-band testing, concrete lan= guage would talk about where packets are injected, what the packet format i= s, what each type of element is expected to do with the packet (count, forw= ard, reflect, append trace-route info). -Dave From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar= ) Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 8:12 PM To: sfc@ietf.org Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August = 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830CB9754wtlexchp1sandvi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I’m having trouble = understanding what is being proposed as the framework.

Currently it seems to be = a list of requirements for a framework, not a framework.<= /p>

Is that the intention? Re= name it to “Requirements for OAM Frameworks” or “Terminol= ogy for OAM Frameworks” ?

 <= /p>

There are also some incon= sistencies that confuse me about the purpose of the document:

On one hand, it says SFP = operation needs to be monitored (including performance and packet loss/reor= dering), but on the other hand it says monitoring “operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM”. How could monitoring be me= aningful without involving the SFs?

So it isn’t clear w= hether the framework is intended to use in-band packets or a control plane,= since in-band packets would surely traverse the SFs.

Other language indicates = all ECMP paths must be traversed, which sounds like in-band.

 <= /p>

SFs are claimed to be out= of scope; however, figure 2 seems to show a control-plane protocol (SFCOAM= ) speaking directly to SFs.

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

If this document is just = about requirements, I could support adoption assuming the above issues can = be clarified; otherwise as a framework I don’t see anything concrete yet, so I can’t figure out where this is going.<= /span>

 <= /p>

E.g., if the framework is= intended to provide in-band testing, concrete language would talk about wh= ere packets are injected, what the packet format is, what each type of element is expected to do with the packet (count, forward, re= flect, append trace-route info).

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

-Dave

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: sfc [mai= lto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 8:12 PM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework

 

Greetings WG:

 

This message begins a 2 wee= k call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/= doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015.

 

Please respond to the SFC m= ailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 

As always please note the f= ollowing:

  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the= WG is expected to modify the document’s content until there is WG co= nsensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.<= /o:p>
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please sta= te your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concern= s.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those = issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.=

Finally, now is also a g= ood time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in li= ne with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, = 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to th= e chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

 

Jim & Thomas=

--_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830CB9754wtlexchp1sandvi_-- From nobody Wed Aug 12 13:22:45 2015 Return-Path: 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 8C1791ACC8A for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:22:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 NSeoX5j40_Cx for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21C7A1AC41C for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B481C0301; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:22:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FEC71C01FD; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:22:41 -0700 (PDT) To: Dave Dolson References: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:40 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:22:44 -0000 It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will traverse the Service Functions. In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through service functions successfully is hard, and would place a significant new requirement on NSH aware service functions. In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would probably not test the important parts of the service functions. Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of what it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to at least a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from those concerned with testing the service function paths. Yours, Joel M. Halpern On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: ... > On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including > performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it says > monitoring “operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM”. How > could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? > > So it isn’t clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band > packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely traverse > the SFs. ... From nobody Wed Aug 12 13:31:16 2015 Return-Path: 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 AC0091ACC7F for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:31:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.61 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 BsmTtT0G6Ba0 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628771A907A for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLR-EXCHP-2.sandvine.com (192.168.196.172) by WTL-EXCHP-2.sandvine.com (192.168.194.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:31:12 -0400 Received: from WTL-EXCHP-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::ac6b:cc1e:f2ff:93aa]) by blr-exchp-2.sandvine.com ([fe80::6c6d:7108:c63c:9055%14]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:31:12 -0400 From: Dave Dolson To: "Joel M. Halpern" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4I0g6QgABNsQD//727EA== Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:31:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.63] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:31:15 -0000 I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet. Behavior would= be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify, ...) However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, the d= efined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, append t= race-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to include an I= P packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity and liveliness= information. A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document doesn= 't say anything like that. -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM To: Dave Dolson Cc: sfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will traverse=20 the Service Functions. In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through service=20 functions successfully is hard, and would place a significant new=20 requirement on NSH aware service functions. In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would probably=20 not test the important parts of the service functions. Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of what=20 it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to at least=20 a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from those=20 concerned with testing the service function paths. Yours, Joel M. Halpern On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: ... > On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including > performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it says > monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". How > could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? > > So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band > packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely traverse > the SFs. ... From nobody Wed Aug 12 13:34:19 2015 Return-Path: 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 898D71ACC7F for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:34:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 mE5noGJ7n1Qj for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94F651ACCFF for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0581C05A2; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AAFD1C048B; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:34:15 -0700 (PDT) To: Dave Dolson , "Joel M. Halpern" References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> From: Joel Halpern Direct Message-ID: <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:34:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:34:18 -0000 We could define that. We may even have to define that sort of service function behavior. (I hope not.) I would not consider that to be testing the service function. It tests that some part of the software is alive, but does not tell you anything more than that. Yours, Joel On 8/12/15 4:31 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: > I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet. Behavior would be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify, ...) > > However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, the defined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, append trace-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to include an IP packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity and liveliness information. > > A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document doesn't say anything like that. > > > -Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM > To: Dave Dolson > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework > > It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will traverse > the Service Functions. > In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through service > functions successfully is hard, and would place a significant new > requirement on NSH aware service functions. > In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would probably > not test the important parts of the service functions. > > Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of what > it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to at least > a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from those > concerned with testing the service function paths. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: > ... >> On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including >> performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it says >> monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". How >> could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? >> >> So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band >> packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely traverse >> the SFs. > ... > From nobody Wed Aug 12 13:40:09 2015 Return-Path: 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 640FE1ACD9F for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:40:08 -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 RbetomNnCx0b for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A51F11ACD9D for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:40:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2929; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439412006; x=1440621606; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=CqP7846DdiK4vlbdeTA7nLDhJ3L5PVCBEPXRN7T1x6g=; b=Tmcr6HFU+cybLPLOJkRl+I0bCYQyXXSSYgl3sfDg+TO0vy9Q9VM6qI5I 14POYNmF3zOi///e+5C8MOQRMxuidB3Dc9MDNDx6drsBDP41Qx+oqifPP 95TDOL4LJEKQ1800exsndxQlKBkC/eHlbXtxURkBQWm64OpHjYA/ZaADA g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B7AwB0rstV/5FdJa1dgxtUab13CYFrCoJDgzYCgU84FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBAwEBAQE3NAsFBwQCAQgRBAEBAR4JBycLFAkIAgQOBYgmCA3QZwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEi1OEVjMHBoMSgRQFlRMBjGuaESaCDhyBU3GCTAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,664,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="23745826" Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Aug 2015 20:40:05 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (xch-rcd-008.cisco.com [173.37.102.18]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7CKe5RJ000325 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:40:05 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:40:04 -0500 Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (173.37.183.81) by xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:40:04 -0500 Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.103]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:40:04 -0500 From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" To: Joel Halpern Direct Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4I0g6QgABedACAAAJgAIAAAN2A//+tz9o= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:40:04 +0000 Message-ID: <09103191-1632-4D3D-BA43-A2C66AEA1246@cisco.com> References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> , <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , "sfc@ietf.org" , Dave Dolson Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:40:08 -0000 We did that in the SFC traceroute draft and its associated implementation. = I agree it does not test specific 'rules' inside SF but otherwise it became= an indispensable tool.=20 > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Joel Halpern Direct wrote: >=20 > We could define that. We may even have to define that sort of service fu= nction behavior. (I hope not.) > I would not consider that to be testing the service function. It tests t= hat some part of the software is alive, but does not tell you anything more= than that. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 >> On 8/12/15 4:31 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >> I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet. Behavior wo= uld be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify, ...) >>=20 >> However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, th= e defined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, appen= d trace-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to include a= n IP packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity and livelin= ess information. >>=20 >> A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document do= esn't say anything like that. >>=20 >>=20 >> -Dave >>=20 >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM >> To: Dave Dolson >> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >>=20 >> It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will traverse >> the Service Functions. >> In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through service >> functions successfully is hard, and would place a significant new >> requirement on NSH aware service functions. >> In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would probably >> not test the important parts of the service functions. >>=20 >> Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of what >> it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to at least >> a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from those >> concerned with testing the service function paths. >>=20 >> Yours, >> Joel M. Halpern >>=20 >>> On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >>> ... >>> On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including >>> performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it says >>> monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". How >>> could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? >>>=20 >>> So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band >>> packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely traverse >>> the SFs. >> ... >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc From nobody Wed Aug 12 13:42:43 2015 Return-Path: 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 20B541ACDB2 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:42:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.61 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 P066YT4vuked for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926E41ACDAE for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WTL-EXCHP-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::ac6b:cc1e:f2ff:93aa]) by wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:42:38 -0400 From: Dave Dolson To: Joel Halpern Direct , "Joel M. Halpern" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4I0g6QgABNsQD//727EIAARYGA//+93/A= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:42:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.63] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:42:42 -0000 I think it is useful to test the paths between SFF and SF. There are defini= tely some failures and overload situations that could be detected. Actually, I think the NSH document is the correct place to define the OAM b= ehaviors as part of the protocol. The framework document should discuss how this tool should be used to monit= or a network. -----Original Message----- From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:34 PM To: Dave Dolson; Joel M. Halpern Cc: sfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework We could define that. We may even have to define that sort of service=20 function behavior. (I hope not.) I would not consider that to be testing the service function. It tests=20 that some part of the software is alive, but does not tell you anything=20 more than that. Yours, Joel On 8/12/15 4:31 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: > I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet. Behavior wou= ld be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify, ...) > > However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, the= defined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, append= trace-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to include an= IP packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity and liveline= ss information. > > A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document doe= sn't say anything like that. > > > -Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM > To: Dave Dolson > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework > > It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will traverse > the Service Functions. > In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through service > functions successfully is hard, and would place a significant new > requirement on NSH aware service functions. > In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would probably > not test the important parts of the service functions. > > Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of what > it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to at least > a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from those > concerned with testing the service function paths. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: > ... >> On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including >> performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it says >> monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". How >> could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? >> >> So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band >> packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely traverse >> the SFs. > ... > From nobody Wed Aug 12 13:46:00 2015 Return-Path: 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 10D7D1ACDBC for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 PLigKY5DMXk3 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B34CF1ACDAE for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CDE240125; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:45:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35C3724066E; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:45:58 -0700 (PDT) To: Dave Dolson References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <55CBB085.4030709@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:45:57 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:46:00 -0000 The distinction I am trying to draw is between testing connectivity to and between service functions, which does seem appropriate; and testing the proper functioning of the service functions in the path, which I believe should be out of scope. If you can propose better wording to make that clear, that would be helpful. Note that even connectivity to the SF may be monitored better by other means. Yours, Joel On 8/12/15 4:42 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: > I think it is useful to test the paths between SFF and SF. There are definitely some failures and overload situations that could be detected. > > Actually, I think the NSH document is the correct place to define the OAM behaviors as part of the protocol. > > The framework document should discuss how this tool should be used to monitor a network. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:34 PM > To: Dave Dolson; Joel M. Halpern > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework > > We could define that. We may even have to define that sort of service > function behavior. (I hope not.) > I would not consider that to be testing the service function. It tests > that some part of the software is alive, but does not tell you anything > more than that. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 8/12/15 4:31 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >> I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet. Behavior would be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify, ...) >> >> However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, the defined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, append trace-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to include an IP packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity and liveliness information. >> >> A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document doesn't say anything like that. >> >> >> -Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM >> To: Dave Dolson >> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >> >> It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will traverse >> the Service Functions. >> In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through service >> functions successfully is hard, and would place a significant new >> requirement on NSH aware service functions. >> In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would probably >> not test the important parts of the service functions. >> >> Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of what >> it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to at least >> a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from those >> concerned with testing the service function paths. >> >> Yours, >> Joel M. Halpern >> >> On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >> ... >>> On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including >>> performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it says >>> monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". How >>> could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? >>> >>> So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band >>> packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely traverse >>> the SFs. >> ... >> From nobody Wed Aug 12 13:48:07 2015 Return-Path: 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 C12791ACDC0 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.61 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 t6w6XacJC6_a for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C341ACDBD for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WTL-EXCHP-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::ac6b:cc1e:f2ff:93aa]) by wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:48:02 -0400 From: Dave Dolson To: "Joel M. Halpern" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4I0g6QgABNsQD//727EIAARYGA//+93/CAAEVmgP//vSdw Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:48:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> <55CBB085.4030709@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <55CBB085.4030709@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.63] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:48:06 -0000 I agree that is a useful distinction of scope. -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:46 PM To: Dave Dolson Cc: sfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework The distinction I am trying to draw is between testing connectivity to=20 and between service functions, which does seem appropriate; and testing=20 the proper functioning of the service functions in the path, which I=20 believe should be out of scope. If you can propose better wording to make that clear, that would be helpful= . Note that even connectivity to the SF may be monitored better by other=20 means. Yours, Joel On 8/12/15 4:42 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: > I think it is useful to test the paths between SFF and SF. There are defi= nitely some failures and overload situations that could be detected. > > Actually, I think the NSH document is the correct place to define the OAM= behaviors as part of the protocol. > > The framework document should discuss how this tool should be used to mon= itor a network. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:34 PM > To: Dave Dolson; Joel M. Halpern > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework > > We could define that. We may even have to define that sort of service > function behavior. (I hope not.) > I would not consider that to be testing the service function. It tests > that some part of the software is alive, but does not tell you anything > more than that. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 8/12/15 4:31 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >> I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet. Behavior wo= uld be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify, ...) >> >> However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, th= e defined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, appen= d trace-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to include a= n IP packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity and livelin= ess information. >> >> A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document do= esn't say anything like that. >> >> >> -Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM >> To: Dave Dolson >> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >> >> It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will traverse >> the Service Functions. >> In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through service >> functions successfully is hard, and would place a significant new >> requirement on NSH aware service functions. >> In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would probably >> not test the important parts of the service functions. >> >> Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of what >> it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to at least >> a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from those >> concerned with testing the service function paths. >> >> Yours, >> Joel M. Halpern >> >> On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >> ... >>> On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including >>> performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it says >>> monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". How >>> could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? >>> >>> So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band >>> packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely traverse >>> the SFs. >> ... >> From nobody Wed Aug 12 18:14:26 2015 Return-Path: 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 AFD341ACD95 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:14:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 kOElPB8Tl6jN for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EB571B2EBB for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BWE52806; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 01:13:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 02:13:35 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.99]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:13:31 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "christian.jacquenet@orange.com" , "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4Il4TwgACIWCA= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 01:13:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7718_1439399128_55CB7CD8_7718_3848_1_88132E969123D14D9BD844E1CD516EDE0F633668@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> In-Reply-To: <7718_1439399128_55CB7CD8_7718_3848_1_88132E969123D14D9BD844E1CD516EDE0F633668@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.180] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8480AFF9nkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 01:14:24 -0000 --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8480AFF9nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 U3VwcG9ydCBhcyBjb2F1dGhvciwgSSBhbSBub3QgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IHJlbGV2YW50IElQUi4N Cg0KLVFpbg0K5Y+R5Lu25Lq6OiBzZmMgW21haWx0bzpzZmMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10g5Luj 6KGoIGNocmlzdGlhbi5qYWNxdWVuZXRAb3JhbmdlLmNvbQ0K5Y+R6YCB5pe26Ze0OiAyMDE15bm0 OOaciDEz5pelIDE6MDUNCuaUtuS7tuS6ujogSmltIEd1aWNoYXJkIChqZ3VpY2hhcik7IHNmY0Bp ZXRmLm9yZw0K5Li76aKYOiBSZTogW3NmY10gV0cgY2FsbCBmb3IgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQt d3ctc2ZjLWNvbnRyb2wtcGxhbmUtMDYNCg0KSGksDQoNCkFzIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgY28tYXV0aG9y cywgSSBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC13dy1zZmMtY29udHJvbC1wbGFuZSBh cyBhIHNmYyBXRyBkb2N1bWVudC4gSeKAmW0gdW5hd2FyZSBvZiBhbnkgSVBSIHBlcnRhaW5pbmcg dG8gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudC4NCg0KQ2hlZXJzLA0KDQpDaHJpc3RpYW4uDQoNCkRlIDogc2ZjIFtt YWlsdG86c2ZjLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIERlIGxhIHBhcnQgZGUgSmltIEd1aWNoYXJkIChq Z3VpY2hhcikNCkVudm95w6kgOiBtZXJjcmVkaSAxMiBhb8O7dCAyMDE1IDE4OjQ5DQrDgCA6IHNm Y0BpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86c2ZjQGlldGYub3JnPg0KT2JqZXQgOiBbc2ZjXSBXRyBjYWxsIGZv ciBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC13dy1zZmMtY29udHJvbC1wbGFuZS0wNg0KDQpHcmVldGluZ3Mg V0c6DQoNClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBiZWdpbnMgYSAyIHdlZWsgY2FsbCBmb3IgV0cgYWRvcHRpb24g b2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LXd3 LXNmYy1jb250cm9sLXBsYW5lLyBlbmRpbmcgMjZ0aCBBdWd1c3QgMjAxNS4NCg0KUGxlYXNlIHJl c3BvbmQgdG8gdGhlIFNGQyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qgd2l0aCBhbnkgc3RhdGVtZW50cyBvZiBhcHBy b3ZhbCBvciBkaXNhcHByb3ZhbC4NCg0KQXMgYWx3YXlzIHBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dp bmc6DQoNCiAgMS4gIFRoaXMgaXMgbm90IGEgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsLiBUaGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMg bm90IGZpbmFsLCBhbmQgdGhlIFdHIGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvIG1vZGlmeSB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnTi gJlzIGNvbnRlbnQgdW50aWwgdGhlcmUgaXMgV0cgY29uc2Vuc3VzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQg aXMgc29saWQuIFRoZXJlZm9yZSwgcGxlYXNlIGRvIG5vdCBvcHBvc2UgYWRvcHRpb24ganVzdCBi ZWNhdXNlIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIHNlZSBjaGFuZ2VzIHRvIGl0cyBjb250ZW50Lg0KICAyLiAgSWYg eW91IGhhdmUgb2JqZWN0aW9ucyB0byBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQsIHBsZWFzZSBz dGF0ZSB5b3VyIHJlYXNvbnMgd2h5LCBhbmQgZXhwbGFpbiB3aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIHRha2UgdG8g YWRkcmVzcyB5b3VyIGNvbmNlcm5zLg0KICAzLiAgSWYgeW91IGhhdmUgaXNzdWVzIHdpdGggdGhl IGNvbnRlbnQsIGJ5IGFsbCBtZWFucyByYWlzZSB0aG9zZSBpc3N1ZXMgYW5kIHdlIGNhbiBiZWdp biBhIGRpYWxvZyBhYm91dCBob3cgYmVzdCB0byBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZW0uDQpGaW5hbGx5LCBub3cg aXMgYWxzbyBhIGdvb2QgdGltZSB0byBwb2xsIGZvciBrbm93bGVkZ2Ugb2YgYW55IElQUiB0aGF0 IGFwcGxpZXMgdG8gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCwgaW4gbGluZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBJUFIgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBv YmxpZ2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgV0cgcGFydGljaXBhbnRzIChzZWUgUkZDcyAzOTc5LCA0ODc5LCAzNjY5 IGFuZCA1Mzc4IGZvciBtb3JlIGRldGFpbHMpLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIGxpc3RlZCBhcyBhIGRvY3Vt ZW50IGF1dGhvciBwbGVhc2UgcmVzcG9uZCB0byB0aGlzIGVtYWlsICh0byB0aGUgY2hhaXJzKSB3 aGV0aGVyIG9yIG5vdCB5b3UgYXJlIGF3YXJlIG9mIGFueSByZWxldmFudCBJUFIuDQoNCkppbSAm IFRob21hcw0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQoNCg0KDQpDZSBtZXNzYWdlIGV0IHNlcyBwaWVjZXMgam9pbnRl cyBwZXV2ZW50IGNvbnRlbmlyIGRlcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbnMgY29uZmlkZW50aWVsbGVzIG91IHBy aXZpbGVnaWVlcyBldCBuZSBkb2l2ZW50IGRvbmMNCg0KcGFzIGV0cmUgZGlmZnVzZXMsIGV4cGxv aXRlcyBvdSBjb3BpZXMgc2FucyBhdXRvcmlzYXRpb24uIFNpIHZvdXMgYXZleiByZWN1IGNlIG1l c3NhZ2UgcGFyIGVycmV1ciwgdmV1aWxsZXogbGUgc2lnbmFsZXINCg0KYSBsJ2V4cGVkaXRldXIg ZXQgbGUgZGV0cnVpcmUgYWluc2kgcXVlIGxlcyBwaWVjZXMgam9pbnRlcy4gTGVzIG1lc3NhZ2Vz IGVsZWN0cm9uaXF1ZXMgZXRhbnQgc3VzY2VwdGlibGVzIGQnYWx0ZXJhdGlvbiwNCg0KT3Jhbmdl IGRlY2xpbmUgdG91dGUgcmVzcG9uc2FiaWxpdGUgc2kgY2UgbWVzc2FnZSBhIGV0ZSBhbHRlcmUs IGRlZm9ybWUgb3UgZmFsc2lmaWUuIE1lcmNpLg0KDQoNCg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMg YXR0YWNobWVudHMgbWF5IGNvbnRhaW4gY29uZmlkZW50aWFsIG9yIHByaXZpbGVnZWQgaW5mb3Jt YXRpb24gdGhhdCBtYXkgYmUgcHJvdGVjdGVkIGJ5IGxhdzsNCg0KdGhleSBzaG91bGQgbm90IGJl IGRpc3RyaWJ1dGVkLCB1c2VkIG9yIGNvcGllZCB3aXRob3V0IGF1dGhvcmlzYXRpb24uDQoNCklm IHlvdSBoYXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IsIHBsZWFzZSBub3RpZnkgdGhl IHNlbmRlciBhbmQgZGVsZXRlIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgaXRzIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzLg0KDQpB cyBlbWFpbHMgbWF5IGJlIGFsdGVyZWQsIE9yYW5nZSBpcyBub3QgbGlhYmxlIGZvciBtZXNzYWdl cyB0aGF0IGhhdmUgYmVlbiBtb2RpZmllZCwgY2hhbmdlZCBvciBmYWxzaWZpZWQuDQoNClRoYW5r IHlvdS4NCg== --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8480AFF9nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRvciIgY29udGVu dD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTIgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8q IEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U2ltU3VuOw0K CXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMSA2IDAgMyAxIDEgMSAxIDE7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWls eToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250 LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAz IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDEx IDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlNpbVN1bjsNCglw YW5vc2UtMToyIDEgNiAwIDMgMSAxIDEgMSAxO30NCi8qIFN0eWxlIERlZmluaXRpb25zICovDQpw Lk1zb05vcm1hbCwgbGkuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBkaXYuTXNvTm9ybWFsDQoJe21hcmdpbjowY207DQoJ bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIsInNlcmlmIjt9DQphOmxpbmssIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJ e21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpibHVlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1 bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkDQoJe21zby1z dHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpwdXJwbGU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVy bGluZTt9DQpwcmUNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCW1zby1zdHlsZS1saW5rOiJI VE1MIFw5ODg0XDhCQkVcNjgzQ1w1RjBGIENoYXIiOw0KCW1hcmdpbjowY207DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJv dHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIg TmV3Ijt9DQpwLk1zb0FjZXRhdGUsIGxpLk1zb0FjZXRhdGUsIGRpdi5Nc29BY2V0YXRlDQoJe21z by1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtbGluazoiXDYyNzlcNkNFOFw2ODQ2XDY1 ODdcNjcyQyBDaGFyIjsNCgltYXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglm b250LXNpemU6OS4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIsInNlcmlmIjt9 DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxNw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbDsNCglmb250LWZh bWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciOw0KCWNvbG9yOiM3MDMwQTA7DQoJZm9udC13ZWlnaHQ6bm9ybWFs Ow0KCWZvbnQtc3R5bGU6bm9ybWFsO30NCnNwYW4uSFRNTENoYXINCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6 IkhUTUwgXDk4ODRcOEJCRVw2ODNDXDVGMEYgQ2hhciI7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5 Ow0KCW1zby1zdHlsZS1saW5rOiJIVE1MIFw5ODg0XDhCQkVcNjgzQ1w1RjBGIjsNCglmb250LWZh bWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciO30NCnNwYW4uQ2hhcg0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZToiXDYyNzlc NkNFOFw2ODQ2XDY1ODdcNjcyQyBDaGFyIjsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNv LXN0eWxlLWxpbms6XDYyNzlcNkNFOFw2ODQ2XDY1ODdcNjcyQzsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpTaW1T dW47fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMjINCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29uYWwtcmVwbHk7 DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgljb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEO30N Ci5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMC4wcHQ7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6NjEyLjBwdCA3OTIuMHB0Ow0K CW1hcmdpbjo3MC44NXB0IDcwLjg1cHQgNzAuODVwdCA3MC44NXB0O30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlv bjENCgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLyogTGlzdCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGxpc3Qg bDANCgl7bXNvLWxpc3QtaWQ6Mjk0MTQ1MTcyOw0KCW1zby1saXN0LXRlbXBsYXRlLWlkczozMDg4 NDgyNzQ7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDENCgl7bXNvLWxpc3QtaWQ6NzA0NDA2NTg0Ow0KCW1zby1saXN0LXRl bXBsYXRlLWlkczotMTIxOTg3MjIyO30NCkBsaXN0IGwxOmxldmVsMQ0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFi LXN0b3A6MzYuMHB0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWlu ZGVudDotMTguMHB0O30NCkBsaXN0IGwxOmxldmVsMg0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6NzIu MHB0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotMTgu MHB0O30NCkBsaXN0IGwxOmxldmVsMw0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6MTA4LjBwdDsNCglt c28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LTE4LjBwdDt9DQpA bGlzdCBsMTpsZXZlbDQNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjE0NC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVs LW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6 bGV2ZWw1DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDoxODAuMHB0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXIt cG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotMTguMHB0O30NCkBsaXN0IGwxOmxldmVsNg0K CXttc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6MjE2LjBwdDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9u OmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LTE4LjBwdDt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMTpsZXZlbDcNCgl7bXNvLWxl dmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjI1Mi4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0K CXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw4DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC10YWIt c3RvcDoyODguMHB0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWlu ZGVudDotMTguMHB0O30NCkBsaXN0IGwxOmxldmVsOQ0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6MzI0 LjBwdDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LTE4 LjBwdDt9DQpvbA0KCXttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjBjbTt9DQp1bA0KCXttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjBj bTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0 cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1b aWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRt YXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5k aWZdLS0+DQo8L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBsYW5nPSJaSC1DTiIgbGluaz0iYmx1ZSIgdmxpbms9InB1 cnBsZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEiPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+ PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZx dW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5T dXBwb3J0IGFzIGNvYXV0aG9yLCBJIGFtIG5vdCBhd2FyZSBvZiBhbnkgcmVsZXZhbnQgSVBSLjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVO LVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1 b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1 b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj4tUWluPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1 QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBjbSAwY20gMGNtIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlNpbVN1biI+ 5Y+R5Lu25Lq6PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjo8L3NwYW4+PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBsYW5n PSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U2ltU3VuIj4gc2Zj IFttYWlsdG86c2ZjLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQo8L3NwYW4+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U2ltU3VuIj7ku6PooaggPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3Bh biBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U2ltU3Vu Ij5jaHJpc3RpYW4uamFjcXVlbmV0QG9yYW5nZS5jb208YnI+DQo8L3NwYW4+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U2ltU3VuIj7lj5HpgIHml7bpl7Q8c3Bh biBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+Ojwvc3Bhbj48L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHls ZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTpTaW1TdW4iPiAyMDE1PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlNpbVN1biI+5bm0PHNwYW4gbGFu Zz0iRU4tVVMiPjg8L3NwYW4+5pyIPHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjEzPC9zcGFuPuaXpTxzcGFu IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj4NCiAxOjA1PGJyPg0KPC9zcGFuPjxiPuaUtuS7tuS6ujxzcGFuIGxhbmc9 IkVOLVVTIj46PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+IEppbSBHdWljaGFyZCAoamd1 aWNoYXIpOyBzZmNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8YnI+DQo8L3NwYW4+PGI+5Li76aKYPHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4t VVMiPjo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj4gUmU6IFtzZmNdIFdHIGNhbGwgZm9y IGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LXd3LXNmYy1jb250cm9sLXBsYW5lLTA2PG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3Bh biBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiM3MDMwQTAiPkhpLDwvc3Bhbj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiM3MDMwQTAiPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiM3MDMwQTAiPkFzIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUg Y28tYXV0aG9ycywgSSBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC13dy1zZmMtY29udHJv bC1wbGFuZSBhcyBhIHNmYyBXRyBkb2N1bWVudC4gSeKAmW0gdW5hd2FyZSBvZiBhbnkgSVBSIHBl cnRhaW5pbmcgdG8gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudC48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVT IiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyZx dW90Oztjb2xvcjojNzAzMEEwIj4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVT IiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyZx dW90Oztjb2xvcjojNzAzMEEwIj5DaGVlcnMsPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1V UyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q291cmllciBOZXcm cXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzcwMzBBMCI+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1V UyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q291cmllciBOZXcm cXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzcwMzBBMCI+Q2hyaXN0aWFuLjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+ PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0i RU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIg TmV3JnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiM3MDMwQTAiPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+ PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2Jv cmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBjbSAwY20gMGNtIj4N CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkZSIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXpl OjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhvbWEmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZx dW90OyI+RGUmbmJzcDs6PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJGUiIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7VGFob21hJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYm cXVvdDsiPiBzZmMgWzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpzZmMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyI+bWFpbHRv OnNmYy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPC9hPl0NCjxiPkRlIGxhIHBhcnQgZGU8L2I+IEppbSBHdWlj aGFyZCAoamd1aWNoYXIpPGJyPg0KPGI+RW52b3nDqSZuYnNwOzo8L2I+IG1lcmNyZWRpIDEyIGFv w7t0IDIwMTUgMTg6NDk8YnI+DQo8Yj7DgCZuYnNwOzo8L2I+IDxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpzZmNA aWV0Zi5vcmciPnNmY0BpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT48YnI+DQo8Yj5PYmpldCZuYnNwOzo8L2I+IFtzZmNd IFdHIGNhbGwgZm9yIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LXd3LXNmYy1jb250cm9sLXBsYW5lLTA2PC9z cGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwv ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5n PSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJy aSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5HcmVldGluZ3MgV0c6 PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5z LXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMi PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWls eTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2si PlRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBiZWdpbnMgYSAyIHdlZWsgY2FsbCBmb3IgV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgdGhl IGRvY3VtZW50Jm5ic3A7PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2Mv ZHJhZnQtd3ctc2ZjLWNvbnRyb2wtcGxhbmUvIj5odHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3Jn L2RvYy9kcmFmdC13dy1zZmMtY29udHJvbC1wbGFuZS88L2E+Jm5ic3A7ZW5kaW5nDQogMjZ0aCBB dWd1c3QgMjAxNS48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwv cD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVT IiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7 LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBs YW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztj b2xvcjpibGFjayI+UGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gdGhlIFNGQyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qgd2l0aCBh bnkgc3RhdGVtZW50cyBvZiBhcHByb3ZhbCBvciBkaXNhcHByb3ZhbC48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFu Zz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29s b3I6YmxhY2siPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0i RU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkm cXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+QXMgYWx3YXlzIHBsZWFz ZSBub3RlIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmc6PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxvbCBzdGFydD0iMSIgdHlwZT0iMSI+DQo8bGkgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrO21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21z by1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1saXN0OmwxIGxldmVsMSBsZm8zIj4NCjxzcGFu IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtD YWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDsiPlRoaXMgaXMgbm90IGEgV0cgbGFz dCBjYWxsLiBUaGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgbm90IGZpbmFsLCBhbmQgdGhlIFdHIGlzIGV4cGVjdGVk IHRvIG1vZGlmeSB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnTigJlzIGNvbnRlbnQgdW50aWwgdGhlcmUgaXMgV0cgY29u c2Vuc3VzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQgaXMgc29saWQuIFRoZXJlZm9yZSwgcGxlYXNlDQogZG8g bm90IG9wcG9zZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBqdXN0IGJlY2F1c2UgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8gc2VlIGNoYW5nZXMg dG8gaXRzIGNvbnRlbnQuPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L2xpPjxsaSBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6YmxhY2s7bXNvLW1hcmdp bi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLWxpc3Q6bDEgbGV2 ZWwxIGxmbzMiPg0KPHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+SWYg eW91IGhhdmUgb2JqZWN0aW9ucyB0byBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQsIHBsZWFzZSBz dGF0ZSB5b3VyIHJlYXNvbnMgd2h5LCBhbmQgZXhwbGFpbiB3aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIHRha2UgdG8g YWRkcmVzcyB5b3VyIGNvbmNlcm5zLjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9saT48bGkgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrO21z by1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1saXN0 OmwxIGxldmVsMSBsZm8zIj4NCjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEw LjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVv dDsiPklmIHlvdSBoYXZlIGlzc3VlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBjb250ZW50LCBieSBhbGwgbWVhbnMgcmFp c2UgdGhvc2UgaXNzdWVzIGFuZCB3ZSBjYW4gYmVnaW4gYSBkaWFsb2cgYWJvdXQgaG93IGJlc3Qg dG8gYWRkcmVzcyB0aGVtLjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9saT48L29sPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVO LVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1 b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPkZpbmFsbHksIG5vdyBpcyBh bHNvIGEgZ29vZCB0aW1lIHRvIHBvbGwgZm9yIGtub3dsZWRnZSBvZiBhbnkgSVBSIHRoYXQgYXBw bGllcyB0byB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBpbiBsaW5lIHdpdGggdGhlIElQUiBkaXNjbG9zdXJlIG9ibGln YXRpb25zIGZvciBXRw0KIHBhcnRpY2lwYW50cyAoc2VlIFJGQ3MgMzk3OSwgNDg3OSwgMzY2OSBh bmQgNTM3OCBmb3IgbW9yZSBkZXRhaWxzKS4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBsaXN0ZWQgYXMgYSBkb2N1bWVu dCBhdXRob3IgcGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gdGhpcyBlbWFpbCAodG8gdGhlIGNoYWlycykgd2hl dGhlciBvciBub3QgeW91IGFyZSBhd2FyZSBvZiBhbnkgcmVsZXZhbnQgSVBSLjwvc3Bhbj48c3Bh biBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAu NXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90 Oztjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBs YW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2Fs aWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5KaW0gJmFtcDsg VGhvbWFzPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8 L2Rpdj4NCjxwcmU+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX188bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3ByZT4NCjxwcmU+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwv cHJlPg0KPHByZT48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+Q2UgbWVzc2FnZSBldCBzZXMgcGllY2VzIGpv aW50ZXMgcGV1dmVudCBjb250ZW5pciBkZXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb25zIGNvbmZpZGVudGllbGxlcyBv dSBwcml2aWxlZ2llZXMgZXQgbmUgZG9pdmVudCBkb25jPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wcmU+ DQo8cHJlPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj5wYXMgZXRyZSBkaWZmdXNlcywgZXhwbG9pdGVzIG91 IGNvcGllcyBzYW5zIGF1dG9yaXNhdGlvbi4gU2kgdm91cyBhdmV6IHJlY3UgY2UgbWVzc2FnZSBw YXIgZXJyZXVyLCB2ZXVpbGxleiBsZSBzaWduYWxlcjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0K PHByZT48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+YSBsJ2V4cGVkaXRldXIgZXQgbGUgZGV0cnVpcmUgYWlu c2kgcXVlIGxlcyBwaWVjZXMgam9pbnRlcy4gTGVzIG1lc3NhZ2VzIGVsZWN0cm9uaXF1ZXMgZXRh bnQgc3VzY2VwdGlibGVzIGQnYWx0ZXJhdGlvbiw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3ByZT4NCjxw cmU+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPk9yYW5nZSBkZWNsaW5lIHRvdXRlIHJlc3BvbnNhYmlsaXRl IHNpIGNlIG1lc3NhZ2UgYSBldGUgYWx0ZXJlLCBkZWZvcm1lIG91IGZhbHNpZmllLiBNZXJjaS48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3ByZT4NCjxwcmU+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5i c3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0KPHByZT48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+VGhpcyBtZXNz YWdlIGFuZCBpdHMgYXR0YWNobWVudHMgbWF5IGNvbnRhaW4gY29uZmlkZW50aWFsIG9yIHByaXZp bGVnZWQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdGhhdCBtYXkgYmUgcHJvdGVjdGVkIGJ5IGxhdzs8bzpwPjwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3ByZT4NCjxwcmU+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPnRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBi ZSBkaXN0cmlidXRlZCwgdXNlZCBvciBjb3BpZWQgd2l0aG91dCBhdXRob3Jpc2F0aW9uLjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0KPHByZT48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+SWYgeW91IGhhdmUg cmVjZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBlbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFu ZCBkZWxldGUgdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMgYXR0YWNobWVudHMuPG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8cHJlPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj5BcyBlbWFpbHMgbWF5IGJlIGFsdGVy ZWQsIE9yYW5nZSBpcyBub3QgbGlhYmxlIGZvciBtZXNzYWdlcyB0aGF0IGhhdmUgYmVlbiBtb2Rp ZmllZCwgY2hhbmdlZCBvciBmYWxzaWZpZWQuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8cHJl PjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj5UaGFuayB5b3UuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8 L2Rpdj4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8480AFF9nkgeml501mbschi_-- From nobody Wed Aug 12 23:51:04 2015 Return-Path: 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 1368E1ACDB7 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:51:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 ZpIKbY7jvKxR for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F0901ACDB4 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 829CD3B412E; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:50:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.66]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 55416158052; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:50:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::95e2:eb4b:3053:fabf%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:50:58 +0200 From: To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4JeL8w Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 06:50:57 +0000 Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933005378783@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933005378783OPEXCLILMA3corp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.7.16.92416 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 06:51:03 -0000 --_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933005378783OPEXCLILMA3corp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jim, As a co-author, I support the adoption of this draft. I don't hold any IPR related to this draft. Cheers, Med De : sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jim Guichard (jguichar= ) Envoy=E9 : mercredi 12 ao=FBt 2015 18:49 =C0 : sfc@ietf.org Objet : [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015= . Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933005378783OPEXCLILMA3corp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Jim,

 

As a co-author, I support the a= doption of this draft.

 

I don’t hold any IPR rela= ted to this draft.

 

Cheers,

Med

 

De : sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Envoy=E9 : mercredi 12 ao=FBt 2015 18:49
=C0 : sfc@ietf.org
Objet : [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plan= e-06

 

Greetings WG:

 

This message begins a 2 wee= k call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/= draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015.

 

Please respond to the SFC m= ailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 

As always please note the f= ollowing:

  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the= WG is expected to modify the document’s content until there is WG co= nsensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.<= /o:p>
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please sta= te your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concern= s.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those = issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.=

Finally, now is also a good= time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in line = with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed a= s a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or= not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

 

Jim & Thomas=

--_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933005378783OPEXCLILMA3corp_-- From nobody Thu Aug 13 00:05:41 2015 Return-Path: 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 0C9CF1A6EFC for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:05:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -95.96 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 QgsHmloBw_QE for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpeg.etri.re.kr (smtpeg1.etri.re.kr [129.254.27.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D35461A007E for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SMTP2.etri.info (129.254.28.72) by SMTPEG1.etri.info (129.254.27.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:05:35 +0900 Received: from SMTP1.etri.info ([169.254.1.101]) by SMTP2.etri.info ([10.2.6.31]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:05:33 +0900 From: =?euc-kr?B?wMy9wsDN?= To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4I68UA Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:05:32 +0000 Message-ID: <69BD5ED3-93E4-4B7C-90A1-1E31F7041EA8@etri.re.kr> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: ko-KR, en-US Content-Language: ko-KR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [129.254.170.45] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69BD5ED393E44B7C90A11E31F7041EA8etrirekr_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:05:39 -0000 --_000_69BD5ED393E44B7C90A11E31F7041EA8etrirekr_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SmltLA0KDQpBcyBhIGNvLWF1dGhvciwgSSBhbSBub3QgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IHJlbGV2YW50IElQ UiwNCmFuZCBJIHN1cHBvcnQgdGhlIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywN ClNldW5naWsuDQoNCjIwMTUuIDguIDEzLiwgv8DA/CAxOjQ5LCBKaW0gR3VpY2hhcmQgKGpndWlj aGFyKSA8amd1aWNoYXJAY2lzY28uY29tPG1haWx0bzpqZ3VpY2hhckBjaXNjby5jb20+PiDA27y6 Og0KDQpHcmVldGluZ3MgV0c6DQoNClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBiZWdpbnMgYSAyIHdlZWsgY2FsbCBm b3IgV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5v cmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LXd3LXNmYy1jb250cm9sLXBsYW5lLyBlbmRpbmcgMjZ0aCBBdWd1c3QgMjAx NS4NCg0KUGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gdGhlIFNGQyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qgd2l0aCBhbnkgc3Rh dGVtZW50cyBvZiBhcHByb3ZhbCBvciBkaXNhcHByb3ZhbC4NCg0KQXMgYWx3YXlzIHBsZWFzZSBu b3RlIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmc6DQoNCiAgMS4gIFRoaXMgaXMgbm90IGEgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsLiBU aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgbm90IGZpbmFsLCBhbmQgdGhlIFdHIGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvIG1vZGlm eSB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnShr3MgY29udGVudCB1bnRpbCB0aGVyZSBpcyBXRyBjb25zZW5zdXMgdGhh dCB0aGUgY29udGVudCBpcyBzb2xpZC4gVGhlcmVmb3JlLCBwbGVhc2UgZG8gbm90IG9wcG9zZSBh ZG9wdGlvbiBqdXN0IGJlY2F1c2UgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8gc2VlIGNoYW5nZXMgdG8gaXRzIGNvbnRl bnQuDQogIDIuICBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBvYmplY3Rpb25zIHRvIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkb2N1 bWVudCwgcGxlYXNlIHN0YXRlIHlvdXIgcmVhc29ucyB3aHksIGFuZCBleHBsYWluIHdoYXQgaXQg d291bGQgdGFrZSB0byBhZGRyZXNzIHlvdXIgY29uY2VybnMuDQogIDMuICBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBp c3N1ZXMgd2l0aCB0aGUgY29udGVudCwgYnkgYWxsIG1lYW5zIHJhaXNlIHRob3NlIGlzc3VlcyBh bmQgd2UgY2FuIGJlZ2luIGEgZGlhbG9nIGFib3V0IGhvdyBiZXN0IHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgdGhlbS4N Cg0KRmluYWxseSwgbm93IGlzIGFsc28gYSBnb29kIHRpbWUgdG8gcG9sbCBmb3Iga25vd2xlZGdl IG9mIGFueSBJUFIgdGhhdCBhcHBsaWVzIHRvIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQsIGluIGxpbmUgd2l0aCB0aGUg SVBSIGRpc2Nsb3N1cmUgb2JsaWdhdGlvbnMgZm9yIFdHIHBhcnRpY2lwYW50cyAoc2VlIFJGQ3Mg Mzk3OSwgNDg3OSwgMzY2OSBhbmQgNTM3OCBmb3IgbW9yZSBkZXRhaWxzKS4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBs aXN0ZWQgYXMgYSBkb2N1bWVudCBhdXRob3IgcGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gdGhpcyBlbWFpbCAo dG8gdGhlIGNoYWlycykgd2hldGhlciBvciBub3QgeW91IGFyZSBhd2FyZSBvZiBhbnkgcmVsZXZh bnQgSVBSLg0KDQpKaW0gJiBUaG9tYXMNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpzZmMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpzZmNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOnNm Y0BpZXRmLm9yZz4NCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc2ZjDQoN Cg== --_000_69BD5ED393E44B7C90A11E31F7041EA8etrirekr_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="euc-kr" Content-ID: <8A7B6143BB8FF94298E8633FC8DE5936@etri.re.kr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PWV1Yy1rciI+DQo8L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBzdHlsZT0id29yZC13 cmFwOiBicmVhay13b3JkOyAtd2Via2l0LW5ic3AtbW9kZTogc3BhY2U7IC13ZWJraXQtbGluZS1i cmVhazogYWZ0ZXItd2hpdGUtc3BhY2U7IiBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCkppbSwNCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+ PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPkFzIGEgY28tYXV0aG9yLCBJIGFt IG5vdCBhd2FyZSBvZiBhbnkgcmVsZXZhbnQgSVBSLDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5hbmQg SSBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQuPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIi PjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5SZWdhcmRzLDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp diBjbGFzcz0iIj5TZXVuZ2lrLjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8 ZGl2Pg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgdHlwZT0iY2l0ZSIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjIw MTUuIDguIDEzLiwgv8DA/CAxOjQ5LCBKaW0gR3VpY2hhcmQgKGpndWljaGFyKSAmbHQ7PGEgaHJl Zj0ibWFpbHRvOmpndWljaGFyQGNpc2NvLmNvbSIgY2xhc3M9IiI+amd1aWNoYXJAY2lzY28uY29t PC9hPiZndDsgwNu8ujo8L2Rpdj4NCjxiciBjbGFzcz0iQXBwbGUtaW50ZXJjaGFuZ2UtbmV3bGlu ZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPGRpdiBzdHlsZT0id29yZC13cmFwOiBicmVhay13b3JkOyAt d2Via2l0LW5ic3AtbW9kZTogc3BhY2U7IC13ZWJraXQtbGluZS1icmVhazogYWZ0ZXItd2hpdGUt c3BhY2U7IGZvbnQtc2l6ZTogMTRweDsgZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IENhbGlicmksIHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7 IiBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+R3JlZXRpbmdzIFdHOjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFz cz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+VGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGJl Z2lucyBhIDIgd2VlayBjYWxsIGZvciBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQmbmJzcDs8 YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC13dy1zZmMtY29u dHJvbC1wbGFuZS8iIGNsYXNzPSIiPmh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2Ry YWZ0LXd3LXNmYy1jb250cm9sLXBsYW5lLzwvYT4mbmJzcDtlbmRpbmcgMjZ0aCBBdWd1c3QgMjAx NS48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNz PSIiPlBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvIHRoZSBTRkMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0IHdpdGggYW55IHN0YXRl bWVudHMgb2YgYXBwcm92YWwgb3IgZGlzYXBwcm92YWwuPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxi ciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5BcyBhbHdheXMgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGUg dGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZzo8L2Rpdj4NCjxvbCBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjxsaSBjbGFzcz0iIj5UaGlzIGlz IG5vdCBhIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbC4gVGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIG5vdCBmaW5hbCwgYW5kIHRoZSBX RyBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBtb2RpZnkgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50oa9zIGNvbnRlbnQgdW50aWwgdGhl cmUgaXMgV0cgY29uc2Vuc3VzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQgaXMgc29saWQuIFRoZXJlZm9yZSwg cGxlYXNlIGRvIG5vdCBvcHBvc2UgYWRvcHRpb24ganVzdCBiZWNhdXNlIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIHNl ZSBjaGFuZ2VzDQogdG8gaXRzIGNvbnRlbnQuPC9saT48bGkgY2xhc3M9IiI+SWYgeW91IGhhdmUg b2JqZWN0aW9ucyB0byBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQsIHBsZWFzZSBzdGF0ZSB5b3Vy IHJlYXNvbnMgd2h5LCBhbmQgZXhwbGFpbiB3aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIHRha2UgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB5 b3VyIGNvbmNlcm5zLjwvbGk+PGxpIGNsYXNzPSIiPklmIHlvdSBoYXZlIGlzc3VlcyB3aXRoIHRo ZSBjb250ZW50LCBieSBhbGwgbWVhbnMgcmFpc2UgdGhvc2UgaXNzdWVzIGFuZCB3ZSBjYW4gYmVn aW4gYSBkaWFsb2cgYWJvdXQgaG93IGJlc3QgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB0aGVtLjwvbGk+PC9vbD4NCjxk aXYgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBDYWxpYnJpOyBmb250LXNpemU6IDEycHg7IiBjbGFzcz0i Ij5GaW5hbGx5LCBub3cgaXMgYWxzbyBhIGdvb2QgdGltZSB0byBwb2xsIGZvciBrbm93bGVkZ2Ug b2YgYW55IElQUiB0aGF0IGFwcGxpZXMgdG8gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCwgaW4gbGluZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBJ UFIgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBvYmxpZ2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgV0cgcGFydGljaXBhbnRzIChzZWUgUkZDcyAz OTc5LCA0ODc5LCAzNjY5IGFuZCA1Mzc4IGZvcg0KIG1vcmUgZGV0YWlscykuIElmIHlvdSBhcmUg bGlzdGVkIGFzIGEgZG9jdW1lbnQgYXV0aG9yIHBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvIHRoaXMgZW1haWwg KHRvIHRoZSBjaGFpcnMpIHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IHlvdSBhcmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IHJlbGV2 YW50IElQUi48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2 IGNsYXNzPSIiPkppbSAmYW1wOyBUaG9tYXM8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX188YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQpzZmMgbWFpbGlu ZyBsaXN0PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOnNmY0BpZXRmLm9yZyIgY2xhc3M9 IiI+c2ZjQGlldGYub3JnPC9hPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21h aWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc2ZjPGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+DQo8 L2Rpdj4NCjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_69BD5ED393E44B7C90A11E31F7041EA8etrirekr_-- From nobody Thu Aug 13 00:07:43 2015 Return-Path: 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 03D0D1A710D for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:07:43 -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 9xeKCG84KqLw for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A60C1A007E for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:07:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2885; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439449661; x=1440659261; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=D7j0AI4bBGpj707/WiTYqVRpS+SWEciWTv02bahqWTU=; b=l9QWPLYBmVvpdp6kxHXrzcg9K6dxItW33haqY9Kzd+dyQO6hrogAXmFD gRoFCt2pziQP7zHBpEhP0CiEPvSbDc2HF7s6bZ+VNoVGqT+il25xOnXxe WBsg0JyTrwYwNzdkP4+/pZ69ibnuMoNViTWct8WTBDwNQzpXzaxeEb3d+ U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ApBQDxQcxV/4YNJK1dgxtUaQa9fIFrCoV5AoE5ORMBAQEBAQEBgQqEIwEBAQQBAQEaHTQLDAQCAQgRBAEBAQoUCQcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCIgmDdA6AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSLU4QmEQEgMQcGgxKBFAWVGQGFA4kyhCuQQ4NmJoN9cYEOOoEEAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,668,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="178173050" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2015 07:07:17 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (xch-aln-014.cisco.com [173.36.7.24]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7D77HxZ031140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:07:17 GMT Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 02:07:16 -0500 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (173.37.183.77) by xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 02:07:16 -0500 Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.53]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 02:07:16 -0500 From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" To: "Joel M. Halpern" , "Andrew G. Malis" , "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4I6TSAgAAEQQCAAJVsMA== Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:07:16 +0000 Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A478BDEC7@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> References: <55CB7E46.1010202@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <55CB7E46.1010202@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.65.58.14] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:07:43 -0000 Hi Jim, As one of the co-authors, I support adoption of this draft and I am unaware= of any IPR pertaining to this document. Cheers, -Tiru > -----Original Message----- > From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:42 PM > To: Andrew G. Malis; Jim Guichard (jguichar) > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 >=20 > Yes, as a co-author I do not know of any applicable IPR, and I am looking > forward to WG adoption. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 8/12/15 12:56 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Jim, > > > > As a co-author, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft, > > and I'm in favor of its adoption by the WG. > > > > Thanks, > > Andy > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) > > > wrote: > > > > Greetings WG: > > > > This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending > > 26th August 2015. > > > > Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of > > approval or disapproval. > > > > As always please note the following: > > > > 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the > > WG is expected to modify the document's content until there is > > WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do no= t > > oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its con= tent. > > 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please stat= e > > your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address you= r > > concerns. > > 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those > > issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them= . > > > > Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR > > that applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure > > obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 > > for more details). If you are listed as a document author please > > respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware > > of any relevant IPR. > > > > 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 > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc From nobody Thu Aug 13 00:47:35 2015 Return-Path: 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 A0A031B2BA1 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:47:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 q1pstVryOsbF for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 072FB1B2B9F for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BWE82376; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:47:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.73) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:47:27 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.157]) by SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:47:21 +0800 From: "Huangyong (Oliver)" To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4JjRgw Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:47:20 +0000 Message-ID: <8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E5D34D@szxema506-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.108.172] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E5D34Dszxema506mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:47:33 -0000 --_000_8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E5D34Dszxema506mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support the draft-ww-sfc-control-plane be adopted as WG doc. As co-author, I am not aware of any relevant IPR. --------------------------- Huangyong (Oliver) Network research, Huawei From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar= ) Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:49 AM To: sfc@ietf.org Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015= . Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG = is expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus th= at the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just beca= use you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state y= our reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issu= es and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E5D34Dszxema506mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support th= e draft-ww-sfc-control-plane be adopted as WG doc.

 = ;

As co-auth= or,  I am not aware of an= y relevant IPR.

-----------= ----------------

Huangyong (Oliver)<= /span>

Network research, Huawei

 = ;

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:49 AM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06=

 

Greetings WG:=

 

This message = begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker= .ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015.

 

Please respon= d to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 

As always ple= ase note the following:

1.&= nbsp;      This = is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is expected to= modify the document’s content until there is WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just b= ecause you want to see changes to its content.

2.&= nbsp;      If yo= u have objections to adoption of the document, please state your reasons wh= y, and explain what it would take to address your concerns.

3.&= nbsp;      If yo= u have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues and we can = begin a dialog about how best to address them.

Finally, now= is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this = draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you= are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chair= s) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

 

Jim & Tho= mas

--_000_8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E5D34Dszxema506mbxchi_-- From nobody Thu Aug 13 02:37:01 2015 Return-Path: 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 B32EC1B37DE for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 02:37:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 yicBJ_wvicMh for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 02:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF0F1B37DD for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 02:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfeda05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.198]) by omfeda11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3DE421B82E2; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:36:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.18]) by omfeda05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1677A180051; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:36:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cba:56d0:a732:ef5a%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:36:56 +0200 From: To: Dave Dolson Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4I0g6Q///pHACAAAJgAIAAANyAgAACVQCAAPldYA== Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:36:56 +0000 Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330053788D0@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.7.16.113616 Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:37:00 -0000 Hi Dave, FWIW, there is an open ticket for this issue in the nsh draft. See http://t= rac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sfc/trac/ticket/10=20 Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Dave Dolson > Envoy=E9=A0: mercredi 12 ao=FBt 2015 22:43 > =C0=A0: Joel Halpern Direct; Joel M. Halpern > Cc=A0: sfc@ietf.org > Objet=A0: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >=20 > I think it is useful to test the paths between SFF and SF. There are > definitely some failures and overload situations that could be detected. >=20 > Actually, I think the NSH document is the correct place to define the OAM > behaviors as part of the protocol. >=20 > The framework document should discuss how this tool should be used to > monitor a network. >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:34 PM > To: Dave Dolson; Joel M. Halpern > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >=20 > We could define that. We may even have to define that sort of service > function behavior. (I hope not.) > I would not consider that to be testing the service function. It tests > that some part of the software is alive, but does not tell you anything > more than that. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 8/12/15 4:31 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: > > I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet. Behavior > would be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify, ...) > > > > However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, > the defined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, > append trace-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to > include an IP packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity > and liveliness information. > > > > A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document > doesn't say anything like that. > > > > > > -Dave > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM > > To: Dave Dolson > > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework > > > > It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will traverse > > the Service Functions. > > In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through service > > functions successfully is hard, and would place a significant new > > requirement on NSH aware service functions. > > In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would probably > > not test the important parts of the service functions. > > > > Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of what > > it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to at leas= t > > a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from those > > concerned with testing the service function paths. > > > > Yours, > > Joel M. Halpern > > > > On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: > > ... > >> On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including > >> performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it says > >> monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". How > >> could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? > >> > >> So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band > >> packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely travers= e > >> the SFs. > > ... > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc From nobody Fri Aug 14 16:19:06 2015 Return-Path: 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 455921A90EF for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:19:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 QDzqAfEqwefG for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E02B91A8981 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BZW96540; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:19:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.130) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:18:54 +0100 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml703-chm ([10.193.5.130]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:18:42 -0700 From: Linda Dunbar To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4JjRgwgAKXqSA= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:18:42 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D11979@dfweml701-chm> References: <8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E5D34D@szxema506-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E5D34D@szxema506-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.134.214] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D11979dfweml701chm_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:19:05 -0000 --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D11979dfweml701chm_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support WG adoption. Linda From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar= ) Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:49 AM To: sfc@ietf.org Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015= . Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG= is expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus t= hat the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just bec= ause you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state = your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those iss= ues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D11979dfweml701chm_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 <= /p>

Support WG adoption.

 

Linda

 <= /p>

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:49 AM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06=

 

Greetings WG:

 

This message begins a 2 week= call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/d= raft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015.

 

Please respond to the SFC ma= iling list with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 

As always please note the fo= llowing:

1.  &nbs= p;     This is not a WG las= t call. The document is not final, and the WG is expected to modify the doc= ument’s content until there is WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want t= o see changes to its content.

2.  &nbs= p;     If you have objectio= ns to adoption of the document, please state your reasons why, and explain = what it would take to address your concerns.

3.  &nbs= p;     If you have issues w= ith the content, by all means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog = about how best to address them.

Finally, now is also a good= time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in line = with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed a= s a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or= not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

 

Jim & Thomas<= /span>

--_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D11979dfweml701chm_-- From nobody Fri Aug 14 16:45:24 2015 Return-Path: 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 672171AC3C2 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:45:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 v3d5vWgqYQZ4 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F97A1AC3B5 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BZW98029; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:45:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML705-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.142) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:45:18 +0100 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml705-chm ([10.193.5.142]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:45:09 -0700 From: Linda Dunbar To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Dave Dolson Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4I0g6QgAB//ACAAAJgAIAAANyAgAACVQCAAADwgIAC37Pg Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:45:09 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D119C7@dfweml701-chm> References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> <55CBB085.4030709@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <55CBB085.4030709@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.134.214] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:45:23 -0000 Joel,=20 Agree that testing the connectivity to and from Service Functions is approp= riate.=20 =20 Will "testing connectivity between Service Functions" be included? It might= require all those deployed service functions to be upgraded.=20 Linda=20 -----Original Message----- From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 3:46 PM To: Dave Dolson Cc: sfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework The distinction I am trying to draw is between testing connectivity to and = between service functions, which does seem appropriate; and testing the pro= per functioning of the service functions in the path, which I believe shoul= d be out of scope. If you can propose better wording to make that clear, that would be helpful= . Note that even connectivity to the SF may be monitored better by other mean= s. Yours, Joel On 8/12/15 4:42 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: > I think it is useful to test the paths between SFF and SF. There are defi= nitely some failures and overload situations that could be detected. > > Actually, I think the NSH document is the correct place to define the OAM= behaviors as part of the protocol. > > The framework document should discuss how this tool should be used to mon= itor a network. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:34 PM > To: Dave Dolson; Joel M. Halpern > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework > > We could define that. We may even have to define that sort of service=20 > function behavior. (I hope not.) I would not consider that to be=20 > testing the service function. It tests that some part of the software=20 > is alive, but does not tell you anything more than that. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 8/12/15 4:31 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >> I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet. Behavior=20 >> would be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify, ...) >> >> However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, th= e defined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, appen= d trace-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to include a= n IP packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity and livelin= ess information. >> >> A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document do= esn't say anything like that. >> >> >> -Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM >> To: Dave Dolson >> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >> >> It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will traverse=20 >> the Service Functions. >> In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through=20 >> service functions successfully is hard, and would place a significant=20 >> new requirement on NSH aware service functions. >> In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would=20 >> probably not test the important parts of the service functions. >> >> Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of=20 >> what it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to=20 >> at least a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from=20 >> those concerned with testing the service function paths. >> >> Yours, >> Joel M. Halpern >> >> On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >> ... >>> On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including=20 >>> performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it=20 >>> says monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM".=20 >>> How could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? >>> >>> So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band=20 >>> packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely=20 >>> traverse the SFs. >> ... >> _______________________________________________ sfc mailing list sfc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc From nobody Fri Aug 14 16:47:41 2015 Return-Path: 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 3761B1AC3EF for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:47:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Y9KTM2i3y4Tx for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A76A1AC3E3 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615901C0393; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:47:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7EF91C0370; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:47:36 -0700 (PDT) To: Linda Dunbar , "Joel M. Halpern" , Dave Dolson References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> <55CBB085.4030709@joelhalpern.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D119C7@dfweml701-chm> From: Joel Halpern Direct Message-ID: <55CE7E17.1010505@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:47:35 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D119C7@dfweml701-chm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:47:39 -0000 I am not sure what you are asking Linda. The whole point of testing the SFP is to test the forwarding that runs between service functions. Yours, Joel On 8/14/15 7:45 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Joel, > > Agree that testing the connectivity to and from Service Functions is appropriate. > > Will "testing connectivity between Service Functions" be included? It might require all those deployed service functions to be upgraded. > > Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 3:46 PM > To: Dave Dolson > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework > > The distinction I am trying to draw is between testing connectivity to and between service functions, which does seem appropriate; and testing the proper functioning of the service functions in the path, which I believe should be out of scope. > > If you can propose better wording to make that clear, that would be helpful. > > Note that even connectivity to the SF may be monitored better by other means. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 8/12/15 4:42 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >> I think it is useful to test the paths between SFF and SF. There are definitely some failures and overload situations that could be detected. >> >> Actually, I think the NSH document is the correct place to define the OAM behaviors as part of the protocol. >> >> The framework document should discuss how this tool should be used to monitor a network. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:34 PM >> To: Dave Dolson; Joel M. Halpern >> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >> >> We could define that. We may even have to define that sort of service >> function behavior. (I hope not.) I would not consider that to be >> testing the service function. It tests that some part of the software >> is alive, but does not tell you anything more than that. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 8/12/15 4:31 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >>> I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet. Behavior >>> would be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify, ...) >>> >>> However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, the defined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, append trace-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to include an IP packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity and liveliness information. >>> >>> A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document doesn't say anything like that. >>> >>> >>> -Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM >>> To: Dave Dolson >>> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >>> >>> It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will traverse >>> the Service Functions. >>> In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through >>> service functions successfully is hard, and would place a significant >>> new requirement on NSH aware service functions. >>> In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would >>> probably not test the important parts of the service functions. >>> >>> Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of >>> what it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to >>> at least a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from >>> those concerned with testing the service function paths. >>> >>> Yours, >>> Joel M. Halpern >>> >>> On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >>> ... >>>> On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including >>>> performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it >>>> says monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". >>>> How could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? >>>> >>>> So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band >>>> packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely >>>> traverse the SFs. >>> ... >>> > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > From nobody Fri Aug 14 16:59:49 2015 Return-Path: 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 CBFD61ACD19 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:59:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 fusNaQL5ZSCH for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C65EA1A8AC2 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BZW98821; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:59:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML704-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.141) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:59:41 +0100 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml704-chm ([10.193.5.141]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:59:32 -0700 From: Linda Dunbar To: Joel Halpern Direct , "Joel M. Halpern" , Dave Dolson Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4I0g6QgAB//ACAAAJgAIAAANyAgAACVQCAAADwgIAC37PggAB3toD//4w/4A== Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:59:31 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D119FE@dfweml701-chm> References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> <55CBB085.4030709@joelhalpern.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D119C7@dfweml701-chm> <55CE7E17.1010505@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <55CE7E17.1010505@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.134.214] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:59:49 -0000 Joel,=20 Based on the SFC architecture, multiple SFs are connected to SFFs. So the c= onnectivity testing is between SFF and SFs, instead between SFs.=20 So the SFP connectivity is from the angle that SFF is connected to the SFs,= and the SFFs are connected, instead of testing if the SFs are connected. T= hat is how I look at it.=20 Linda =20 -----Original Message----- From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com]=20 Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:48 PM To: Linda Dunbar; Joel M. Halpern; Dave Dolson Cc: sfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework I am not sure what you are asking Linda. The whole point of testing the SF= P is to test the forwarding that runs between service functions. Yours, Joel On 8/14/15 7:45 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Joel, > > Agree that testing the connectivity to and from Service Functions is appr= opriate. > > Will "testing connectivity between Service Functions" be included? It mig= ht require all those deployed service functions to be upgraded. > > Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 3:46 PM > To: Dave Dolson > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework > > The distinction I am trying to draw is between testing connectivity to an= d between service functions, which does seem appropriate; and testing the p= roper functioning of the service functions in the path, which I believe sho= uld be out of scope. > > If you can propose better wording to make that clear, that would be helpf= ul. > > Note that even connectivity to the SF may be monitored better by other me= ans. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 8/12/15 4:42 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >> I think it is useful to test the paths between SFF and SF. There are def= initely some failures and overload situations that could be detected. >> >> Actually, I think the NSH document is the correct place to define the OA= M behaviors as part of the protocol. >> >> The framework document should discuss how this tool should be used to mo= nitor a network. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:34 PM >> To: Dave Dolson; Joel M. Halpern >> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >> >> We could define that. We may even have to define that sort of=20 >> service function behavior. (I hope not.) I would not consider that=20 >> to be testing the service function. It tests that some part of the=20 >> software is alive, but does not tell you anything more than that. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 8/12/15 4:31 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >>> I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet.=20 >>> Behavior would be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify,=20 >>> ...) >>> >>> However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, t= he defined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, appe= nd trace-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to include = an IP packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity and liveli= ness information. >>> >>> A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document d= oesn't say anything like that. >>> >>> >>> -Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM >>> To: Dave Dolson >>> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >>> >>> It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will=20 >>> traverse the Service Functions. >>> In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through=20 >>> service functions successfully is hard, and would place a=20 >>> significant new requirement on NSH aware service functions. >>> In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would=20 >>> probably not test the important parts of the service functions. >>> >>> Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of=20 >>> what it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to=20 >>> at least a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from=20 >>> those concerned with testing the service function paths. >>> >>> Yours, >>> Joel M. Halpern >>> >>> On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >>> ... >>>> On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including=20 >>>> performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it=20 >>>> says monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". >>>> How could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? >>>> >>>> So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band=20 >>>> packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely=20 >>>> traverse the SFs. >>> ... >>> > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > sfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > From nobody Fri Aug 14 17:08:05 2015 Return-Path: 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 6CD1B1ACD77 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:08:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 YuA1mn_VuKOZ for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94D701ACD5B for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683571C0393; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:08:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E31271C0873; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:08:01 -0700 (PDT) To: Linda Dunbar , Dave Dolson References: <55CBAB10.5090202@joelhalpern.com> <55CBADC7.6060004@joelhalpern.com> <55CBB085.4030709@joelhalpern.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D119C7@dfweml701-chm> <55CE7E17.1010505@joelhalpern.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D119FE@dfweml701-chm> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <55CE82E0.6030306@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:08:00 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657D119FE@dfweml701-chm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:08:04 -0000 What we have been discussing is testing the Service Function path forwarding, including finding means to test the connectivity between the SF and the SFF. (There are a couple of approaches to the later, depending upon what one is willing to assume, particularly with regard to proxy forwarders.) You asked about forwarding between SF, which seems to be covered. Yours, Joel On 8/14/15 7:59 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Joel, > > Based on the SFC architecture, multiple SFs are connected to SFFs. So the connectivity testing is between SFF and SFs, instead between SFs. > So the SFP connectivity is from the angle that SFF is connected to the SFs, and the SFFs are connected, instead of testing if the SFs are connected. That is how I look at it. > > > Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:48 PM > To: Linda Dunbar; Joel M. Halpern; Dave Dolson > Cc: sfc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework > > I am not sure what you are asking Linda. The whole point of testing the SFP is to test the forwarding that runs between service functions. > Yours, > Joel > > On 8/14/15 7:45 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: >> Joel, >> >> Agree that testing the connectivity to and from Service Functions is appropriate. >> >> Will "testing connectivity between Service Functions" be included? It might require all those deployed service functions to be upgraded. >> >> Linda >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern >> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 3:46 PM >> To: Dave Dolson >> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >> >> The distinction I am trying to draw is between testing connectivity to and between service functions, which does seem appropriate; and testing the proper functioning of the service functions in the path, which I believe should be out of scope. >> >> If you can propose better wording to make that clear, that would be helpful. >> >> Note that even connectivity to the SF may be monitored better by other means. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 8/12/15 4:42 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >>> I think it is useful to test the paths between SFF and SF. There are definitely some failures and overload situations that could be detected. >>> >>> Actually, I think the NSH document is the correct place to define the OAM behaviors as part of the protocol. >>> >>> The framework document should discuss how this tool should be used to monitor a network. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:34 PM >>> To: Dave Dolson; Joel M. Halpern >>> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >>> >>> We could define that. We may even have to define that sort of >>> service function behavior. (I hope not.) I would not consider that >>> to be testing the service function. It tests that some part of the >>> software is alive, but does not tell you anything more than that. >>> >>> Yours, >>> Joel >>> >>> On 8/12/15 4:31 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >>>> I agree if the in-band packet is, for example, a TCP packet. >>>> Behavior would be entirely SF-dependent (firewall drop, NAT modify, >>>> ...) >>>> >>>> However, if an NSH OAM packet (with O-flag set) is received by an SF, the defined behavior could be to forward it (along with count, reflect, append trace-route info, etc.) The NSH OAM packet doesn't even need to include an IP packet within it. This could provide valuable connectivity and liveliness information. >>>> >>>> A framework could define such behavior as mandatory. But the document doesn't say anything like that. >>>> >>>> >>>> -Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:23 PM >>>> To: Dave Dolson >>>> Cc: sfc@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework >>>> >>>> It is not necessarily the case that in-band OAM packets will >>>> traverse the Service Functions. >>>> In fact, arranging things so that OAM packets will pass through >>>> service functions successfully is hard, and would place a >>>> significant new requirement on NSH aware service functions. >>>> In addition, by virtue of that requirement, the packets would >>>> probably not test the important parts of the service functions. >>>> >>>> Thus, in my view, it is much better to leave the determination of >>>> what it means to test service functions, and how to achieve that, to >>>> at least a separate document, and probably separate mechanisms from >>>> those concerned with testing the service function paths. >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> Joel M. Halpern >>>> >>>> On 8/12/15 4:07 PM, Dave Dolson wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> On one hand, it says SFP operation needs to be monitored (including >>>>> performance and packet loss/reordering), but on the other hand it >>>>> says monitoring "operation of an SF is beyond the scope of SFC OAM". >>>>> How could monitoring be meaningful without involving the SFs? >>>>> >>>>> So it isn't clear whether the framework is intended to use in-band >>>>> packets or a control plane, since in-band packets would surely >>>>> traverse the SFs. >>>> ... >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sfc mailing list >> sfc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc >> > From nobody Fri Aug 14 17:27:13 2015 Return-Path: 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 899C81B2AF8 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:27:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 pO2bp6dbhPDX for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from g1t5424.austin.hp.com (g1t5424.austin.hp.com [15.216.225.54]) (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 284491B2AF5 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from G2W4316.americas.hpqcorp.net (g2w4316.austin.hp.com [16.197.9.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g1t5424.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57680177; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:27:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from G2W4314.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.197.24.50) by G2W4316.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.197.9.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.169.1; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:24:41 +0000 Received: from G2W2527.americas.hpqcorp.net ([169.254.7.6]) by G2W4314.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.197.24.50]) with mapi id 14.03.0169.001; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:24:41 +0000 From: "Bottorff, Paul" To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Thread-Index: AQHQzkomodjy4n0yCEqdLnUszVnyNp4MRLdg Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:24:40 +0000 Message-ID: <94DA9C7F532AD946852C9C552719523924E9E61F@G2W2527.americas.hpqcorp.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [16.193.232.24] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94DA9C7F532AD946852C9C552719523924E9E61FG2W2527americas_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:27:11 -0000 --_000_94DA9C7F532AD946852C9C552719523924E9E61FG2W2527americas_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support WG adoption Cheers, Paul From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar= ) Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 5:12 PM To: sfc@ietf.org Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August = 2015. Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_94DA9C7F532AD946852C9C552719523924E9E61FG2W2527americas_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support WG adoption=

 

Cheers,

 

Paul

 

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.o= rg] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 5:12 PM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework

 

Greetings WG:

 

This message begins a 2 week call for W= G adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-al= drin-sfc-oam-framework/ ending 17th August 2015.

 

Please respond to the SFC mailing list = with any statements of approval or disapproval.

 

As always please note the following:

  1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is expec= ted to modify the document’s content until there is WG consensus that= the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.
  2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your reas= ons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns.
  3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues and w= e can begin a dialog about how best to address them.
    4. =

Finally, now is also a g= ood time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in li= ne with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants (see RFCs 3979, = 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to th= e chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

 

Jim & Thomas

--_000_94DA9C7F532AD946852C9C552719523924E9E61FG2W2527americas_-- From nobody Fri Aug 14 19:42:57 2015 Return-Path: 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 D3FE11B2BAD for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:42:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 jDiW1wJ5oss9 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.f5.com (mail.f5.com [208.85.209.139]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D824E1B2BAB for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:42:53 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,682,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="175550813" X-IPAS-Result: A2CaBAAQps5V/+sKqMBdGQEBAYIygSFpBsAKhXkCgg8BAQEBAQGBC4QjAQIBAx1RHQEIEQECAQIoORQDBgoEARKIO895AScEi1OEJhEBQA0RhCYFjRSEeoMNhQSJMoQrkEiDZ4QjcYEOOoEEAQEB Received: from oracle-apps.f5net.com (HELO exchmail.f5net.com) ([192.168.10.235]) by mail.f5.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 15 Aug 2015 02:42:52 +0000 Received: from SEAEXCHMBX02.olympus.F5Net.com (192.168.15.224) by seaexchmbx02.olympus.F5Net.com (192.168.15.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:42:52 -0700 Received: from SEAEXCHMBX02.olympus.F5Net.com ([fe80::dd5e:c398:17d9:927f]) by seaexchmbx02.olympus.F5Net.com ([fe80::dd5e:c398:17d9:927f%13]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:42:52 -0700 From: Sumandra Majee To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Thread-Index: AQHQ1wQUiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzA== Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 02:42:52 +0000 Message-ID: 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-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [192.168.15.239] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1F3F02641820smajeef5com_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 02:42:57 -0000 --_000_D1F3F02641820smajeef5com_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support the adoption. Following are my comments and we should be able to discuss this before the = last call. 1. 4.7 SF liveliness detection: An inband liveliness also should be con= sidered and this control point should be the only recipient of this informa= tion. In a large distributed system this architecture may have a) scalabili= ty issues b) issues with reaction time. If node#1 has the health informati= on for node#2 it can (sometimes) independently take local decision. This wi= ll scale well. Furthermore attributes like latency etc. are measured at the= local node, and this makes the feedback loop between observer and correspo= nding local control point much shorter. This is in addition to what is des= cribed in draft. 2. 4.8 Monitoring and counters: Yes it is needed, but I am not sure this= needs to be part of this draft. Either way the list of attributes are best= incomplete and it will be always be like that. Why bother with this sectio= n at all. 3. 4. SFC Classification policy entry should be bound to one single service function chain (or one single SFP) The above appears to be unnecessary, if I create a policy obje= ct I would rather refer it to multiple places. Can you describe a case or t= hought process behind this assertion. Regards Sumandra From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 9:49 AM To: "sfc@ietf.org" > Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 Greetings WG: This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015= . Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d= isapproval. As always please note the following: 1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because= you want to see changes to its content. 2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your= reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns. 3. If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them. Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl= ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti= cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l= isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe= ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Jim & Thomas --_000_D1F3F02641820smajeef5com_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <8FD8D0E5A060814B947AEBC22BB81203@F5.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support the adoption. 

Following are my comments and we should be able to discuss this before= the last call.

  1. 4.7 SF liveliness detection:  An inband liveliness also should be = considered and this control point should be the only recipient of this info= rmation. In a large distributed system this architecture may have a) scalab= ility issues b) issues with reaction time.  If node#1 has the health information for node#2 it can (someti= mes) independently take local decision. This will scale well. Furthermore a= ttributes like latency etc. are measured at the local node, and this makes = the feedback loop between observer and corresponding local control point much shorter.  This is in addition = to what is described in draft.
  2. 4.8 Monitoring and counters: Yes it = is needed, but I am not sure this needs to be part of this draft. Either wa= y the list of attributes are best incomplete and it will be always be like = that. Why bother with this section at all.

  4. ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:15:39 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:15:38 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (173.36.12.83) by xch-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:15:38 -0500
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.17]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:15:38 -0500
From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" 
To: "sfc@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework-02
Thread-Index: AQHQ2P+SjDw7j6OmZkCgWkC618YbQw==
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:15:38 +0000
Message-ID: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.23]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1F772D5201E8jguicharciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-framework-02
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:15:41 -0000

--_000_D1F772D5201E8jguicharciscocom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

We have received good support for the adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam-fram=
ework-02 as a working group draft. Authors, please post a new version as dr=
aft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00.

Jim & Thomas

--_000_D1F772D5201E8jguicharciscocom_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7EAF0A84AA1FDC42812C800CF44F8DEF@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable







    

    Greetings,
    


    

    

    We have received good support for the adoption of draft-aldrin-sfc-oam=
-framework-02 as a working group draft. Authors, please post a new version =
as draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00. 
    

    


    

    

    Jim & Thomas
    



--_000_D1F772D5201E8jguicharciscocom_--


From nobody Mon Aug 17 11:18:38 2015
Return-Path: 
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 CA7FF1ACEB0; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 M3IS8IvC1NCJ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF771ACEAE; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: 
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150817181833.4899.1832.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:18:33 -0700
Archived-At: 
Cc: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00.txt
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:18:35 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Service Function Chaining Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Service Function Chaining Operation, Administration and Maintenance Framework
        Authors         : Sam K. Aldrin
                          Ram Krishnan
                          Nobo Akiya
                          Carlos Pignataro
                          Anoop Ghanwani
	Filename        : draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00.txt
	Pages           : 10
	Date            : 2015-08-17

Abstract:
   This document provides reference framework for Operations,
   Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Service Function
   Chaining (SFC).



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


From nobody Wed Aug 19 19:38:31 2015
Return-Path: 
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 D6D031A9034 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Zg9gRX36cgtV for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89E621A8F4B for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CAD93054; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:38:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.71) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 03:38:22 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.50]) by SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.71]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:38:15 +0800
From: "Hongyu Li (Julio)" 
To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4UN6gQ
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:38:14 +0000
Message-ID: <6EB34CB5D82C4645B826C56144826EA9A3A5C774@SZXEMA509-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.57.56.85]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6EB34CB5D82C4645B826C56144826EA9A3A5C774SZXEMA509MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:38:30 -0000

--_000_6EB34CB5D82C4645B826C56144826EA9A3A5C774SZXEMA509MBXchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As a co-author, I fully support adoption of this draft and I am not aware o=
f any IPR.

Hongyu

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar=
)
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:49 AM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06

Greetings WG:

This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d=
atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015=
.

Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d=
isapproval.

As always please note the following:

  1.  This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is =
expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that =
the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because=
 you want to see changes to its content.
  2.  If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your=
 reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns.
  3.  If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues =
and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.
Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl=
ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti=
cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l=
isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe=
ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

Jim & Thomas

--_000_6EB34CB5D82C4645B826C56144826EA9A3A5C774SZXEMA509MBXchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable









    

    As a co-au=
thor, I fully support adoption of this draft and I am not aware of any IPR.=

    

     =
;
    

    Hongyu
    

     =
;
    

    

    

    From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
    
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:49 AM
    
To: sfc@ietf.org
    
Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06=

    

    

    

     
    

    

    Greetings WG=
:
    

    

    

     <=
/o:p>
    

    

    

    This message=
 begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracke=
r.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending
 26th August 2015.
    

    

    

     <=
/o:p>
    

    

    

    Please respo=
nd to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.<=
o:p>
    

    

    

     <=
/o:p>
    

    

    

    As always pl=
ease note the following:
    

    

      

    1. 
This is not a WG last call. The document is not=
 final, and the WG is expected to modify the document’s content until=
 there is WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please
 do not oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content=
.
    2. 
If you have objections to adoption of the docum=
ent, please state your reasons why, and explain what it would take to addre=
ss your concerns.
    3. 
If you have issues with the content, by all mea=
ns raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address t=
hem.
    

    

    Finally, now=
 is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this =
draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG
 participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you=
 are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chair=
s) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
    

    

    

     <=
/o:p>
    

    

    

    Jim & Th=
omas
    

    

    



--_000_6EB34CB5D82C4645B826C56144826EA9A3A5C774SZXEMA509MBXchi_--


From nobody Wed Aug 19 20:34:38 2015
Return-Path: 
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 7DAB01A9108 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 fbFPi5xkoivb for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E90D1A9148 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CAD97159; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 03:34:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.47) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:34:29 +0100
Received: from BLREML509-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.175]) by BLREML408-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.47]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:04:23 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody 
To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4UR8bw
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 03:34:22 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C3C472B@BLREML509-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.18.244.252]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C3C472BBLREML509MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 03:34:37 -0000

--_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C3C472BBLREML509MBSchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support for WG adoption!

Regards,
Dhruv

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar=
)
Sent: 12 August 2015 22:19
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06

Greetings WG:

This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://d=
atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015=
.

Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or d=
isapproval.

As always please note the following:

  1.  This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is =
expected to modify the document's content until there is WG consensus that =
the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just because=
 you want to see changes to its content.
  2.  If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your=
 reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns.
  3.  If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues =
and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.
Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that appl=
ies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG parti=
cipants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are l=
isted as a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whe=
ther or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

Jim & Thomas

--_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C3C472BBLREML509MBSchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable









    

    Support for WG adopt=
ion!

    

     
    

    Regards,<=
/span>
    

    Dhruv
    

     
    

    

    

    

    From: sfc [mai=
lto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
    
Sent: 12 August 2015 22:19
    
To: sfc@ietf.org
    
Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06=

    

    

    

     
    

    

    Greetings WG:
    

    

    

     

    

    

    This message begins a 2 wee=
k call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/=
draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending
 26th August 2015.
    

    

    

     

    

    

    Please respond to the SFC m=
ailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.
    

    

    

     

    

    

    As always please note the f=
ollowing:
    

    

      

    1. 
This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the=
 WG is expected to modify the document’s content until there is WG co=
nsensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not
 oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.<=
/o:p>
    2. 
If you have objections to adoption of the document, please sta=
te your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concern=
s.
    3. 
If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those =
issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.=

    

    

    Finally, now is also a good=
 time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in line =
with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants
 (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed a=
s a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or=
 not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
    

    

    

     

    

    

    Jim & Thomas=

    

    

    

    



--_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C3C472BBLREML509MBSchi_--


From nobody Wed Aug 19 21:14:02 2015
Return-Path: 
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 4C1CE1A92B5 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.34
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 4tOLm9b3Egnf for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smfilter1.kt.com (smfilter1.kt.com [14.63.245.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231DD1A9252 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from external ([147.6.42.87]) by smfilter1.kt.com (1.0) id t7K4Cwi00DB4; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:12:58 +0900
Received: by KTEX2.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 600) id 3mxXdQ65wyz4181x; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:12:57 +0900 (KST)
Received: from MAIL-FRT-03.corp.ktad.kt.com (unknown [147.6.42.85]) by KTEX2.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3mxXdJ54xPz4181w; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:12:52 +0900 (KST)
Received: from MAIL-MBX-02.corp.ktad.kt.com ([10.215.33.72]) by MAIL-FRT-03.corp.ktad.kt.com ([10.215.33.53]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:12:52 +0900
From: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?sK3FwsijKFNETiBQcm9qZWN0KQ==?= 
To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4UUm2g
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:12:51 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: ko-KR, en-US
Content-Language: ko-KR
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-dispnameaddress: th.kang@kt.com
x-originating-ip: [10.214.72.214]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_EE1EEAC78A332D40ACF8B5796CBD26AC29133881MAILMBX02_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:14:01 -0000

--_004_EE1EEAC78A332D40ACF8B5796CBD26AC29133881MAILMBX02_
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_EE1EEAC78A332D40ACF8B5796CBD26AC29133881MAILMBX02_"

--_000_EE1EEAC78A332D40ACF8B5796CBD26AC29133881MAILMBX02_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_EE1EEAC78A332D40ACF8B5796CBD26AC29133881MAILMBX02_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ks_c_5601-1987"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








    

    Support the adoption of the draft.
    

     
    

    IMHO, for SFC resiliency, the aspect of high availabil=
ity of SF/SFF should be emphasized, including failover of SF.
    

    Some attributes of SFF(e.g. high capacity) and SF(mand=
atory/optional) could be considered
    

    for dynamic path selection and connectivity of SFs.
    

    (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kang-sf=
c-dynamic-path-selection/)

    

    Dynamic path selection of multiple instances of SF can=
 be used for policy-based load balancing as well.
    

     
    

    Draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 treats resiliency and lo=
ad balancing,
    

    and I think these parts could be further extended with=
 support of WG.
    

     
    

    Best Regards,
    

    Taeho
    

     
    

    

    3D"http://massmail.kt.com/NameCardImage/NameCar=
    

    

     
    

    

    

    From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
    
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 1:49 AM
    
To: sfc@ietf.org
    
Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06=

    

    

    

     
    

    

    Greetings =
WG:
    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    This messa=
ge begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-con=
trol-plane/&nbs=
p;ending
 26th August 2015.
    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    Please res=
pond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval=
.
    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    As always =
please note the following:
    

    

      

    1. =
This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is expect=
ed to modify the document=A1=AFs content until there is WG consensus
 that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just b=
ecause you want to see changes to its content.
    2. If you have objec=
tions to adoption of the document, please state your reasons why, and expla=
in what it would take to address your concerns.
    3. If you have issu=
es with the content, by all means raise those issues and we can begin a dia=
log about how best to address them.
    

    

    Finally, n=
ow is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to thi=
s draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG
 participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you=
 are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the chair=
s) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    Jim & =
Thomas
    

    

    
 
    

    

    
=C0=CC =B8=DE=C0=CF=C0=BA =C1=F6=C1=A4=B5=C8 =BC=F6=C3=EB=C0=CE=B8=B8=C0=BB=
 =C0=A7=C7=D8 =C0=DB=BC=BA=B5=C7=BE=FA=C0=B8=B8=E7, =C1=DF=BF=E4=C7=D1 =C1=
=A4=BA=B8=B3=AA =C0=FA=C0=DB=B1=C7=C0=BB =C6=F7=C7=D4=C7=CF=B0=ED =C0=D6=C0=
=BB =BC=F6 =C0=D6=BD=C0=B4=CF=B4=D9. =BE=EE=B6=B0=C7=D1 =B1=C7=C7=D1 =BE=F8=
=C0=CC, =BA=BB =B9=AE=BC=AD=BF=A1 =C6=F7=C7=D4=B5=C8 =C1=A4=BA=B8=C0=C7 =C0=
=FC=BA=CE =B6=C7=B4=C2 =C0=CF=BA=CE=B8=A6 =B9=AB=B4=DC=C0=B8=B7=CE =C1=A63=
=C0=DA=BF=A1=B0=D4 =B0=F8=B0=B3, =B9=E8=C6=F7, =BA=B9=BB=E7 =B6=C7=B4=C2 =
=BB=E7=BF=EB=C7=CF=B4=C2 =B0=CD=C0=BB =BE=F6=B0=DD=C8=F7 =B1=DD=C1=F6=C7=D5=
=B4=CF=B4=D9. =B8=B8=BE=E0, =BA=BB =B8=DE=C0=CF=C0=CC =C0=DF=B8=F8 =C0=FC=
=BC=DB=B5=C8 =B0=E6=BF=EC, =B9=DF=BD=C5=C0=CE =B6=C7=B4=C2 =B4=E7=BB=E7=BF=
=A1 =BE=CB=B7=C1=C1=D6=BD=C3=B0=ED, =BA=BB =B8=DE=C0=CF=C0=BB =C1=EF=BD=C3 =
=BB=E8=C1=A6=C7=CF=BF=A9 =C1=D6=BD=C3=B1=E2 =B9=D9=B6=F8=B4=CF=B4=D9.

    
This E-mail may contain confidential information and/or copyright material.=
 This email is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you receive t=
his email by mistake, please either delete it without reproducing, distribu=
ting or retaining copies thereof
 or notify the sender immediately.
    

    



--_000_EE1EEAC78A332D40ACF8B5796CBD26AC29133881MAILMBX02_--

--_004_EE1EEAC78A332D40ACF8B5796CBD26AC29133881MAILMBX02_
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png"
Content-Description: image001.png
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=5128;
	creation-date="Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:12:51 GMT";
	modification-date="Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:12:51 GMT"
Content-ID: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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==

--_004_EE1EEAC78A332D40ACF8B5796CBD26AC29133881MAILMBX02_--


From nobody Wed Aug 19 21:59:44 2015
Return-Path: 
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 3ED381B2B25 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.51
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cF1C021Y-831 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx6.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA63E1ACC82 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.119]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id 5DE7A2EC0B165; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:52:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 44CC84C8B4863; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:59:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id t7K4xWoI047818; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:59:32 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from wang.cui1@zte.com.cn)
To: paulq@cisco.com, uri.elzur@intel.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 10F14FD4:A44C6C62-48257EA7:0009F072; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011
Message-ID: 
From: wang.cui1@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:59:35 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2015-08-20 12:59:32, Serialize complete at 2015-08-20 12:59:32
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 001B6E7348257EA7_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn t7K4xWoI047818
Archived-At: 
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , "sfc@ietf.org" 
Subject: [sfc]  Some difficulty in using MD-1 as mandatory MD Type
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:59:43 -0000

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 001B6E7348257EA7_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Dear Paul & Uri & all,

  Recently, after reading draft SFC-NSH, I read draft-dc-allocation and 
draft-mobitlity-allocation carefully as well. And here is an issue about 
the mandatory MD-Type defined in these drafts.
 
  We all know that, MD-Type=1 is mandatory according to the definition in 
SFC-NSH. And draft-dc and draft-mobility are proposed to define the 
recommended Mandatory Context Headers when MD-Type=1.
 
  We also can know that, it is correct to define differentiated Mandatory 
Context headers format with totally differentiated meaning under 
differentiated scenario. Such as, in a dc scenario, SFs can analyze the 
exactly meanings in the  Mandatory Context headers according to the 
definition in draft-dc, and so is the same in mobility scenario. 

  But, what if in environments with mixed need, such as Data Centers 
providing both wireless and classic DC services. How the SFs in this mixed 
environments to correctly analyze the Mandatory Context headers in the NSH 
when the MD-Type is set 1 ? In other words, how the SFs in this mixed 
environments know the receiving Mandatory Context headers in the NSH are 
used for wireless service or classic DC services?

  Hope I express my question clearly and expect reply:) Thanks very much:)

Best Wishes,
Linda Wang




--=_alternative 001B6E7348257EA7_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

Dear Paul & Uri & all,

    

      Recently, after reading draft SFC-NSH,
I read draft-dc-allocation and draft-mobitlity-allocation carefully as
well. And here is an issue about the mandatory MD-Type defined in these
drafts.

      

      We all know that, MD-Type=1 is mandatory
according to the definition in SFC-NSH. And draft-dc and draft-mobility
are proposed to define the recommended Mandatory Context Headers when MD-Type=1.

     

      We also can know that, it is correct
to define differentiated Mandatory Context headers format with totally
differentiated meaning under differentiated scenario. Such as, in a dc
scenario, SFs can analyze the exactly meanings in the  Mandatory Context
headers according to the definition in draft-dc, and so is the same in
mobility scenario. 

    

      But, what if in environments with
mixed need, such as Data Centers providing both wireless and classic DC
services. How the SFs in this mixed environments to correctly analyze the
Mandatory Context headers in the NSH when the MD-Type is set 1 ? In other
words, how the SFs in this mixed environments know the receiving Mandatory
Context headers in the NSH are used for wireless service or classic DC
services?

    

      Hope I express my question clearly
and expect reply:) Thanks very much:)

    

    Best Wishes,

    Linda Wang

    

    

    

    
--=_alternative 001B6E7348257EA7_=--


From nobody Thu Aug 20 02:02:18 2015
Return-Path: 
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 D70B91A8877 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.76
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 X5qx91KRAwiM for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1E1A1A8830 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BWN22328; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:02:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([10.125.30.101]) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:02:05 +0100
From: Georgios Karagiannis 
To: "sfc@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
Thread-Index: AQHQ1R7MiUERloa5oE2FSVlmEVsnzJ4UUm2ggABQijA=
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:02:05 +0000
Message-ID: 
References:  
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.221.64.56]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153F70Blhreml502mbs_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: 
Cc: "Jim Guichard \(jguichar\)" , =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?sK3FwsijKFNETiBQcm9qZWN0KQ==?= 
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:02:17 -0000

--_004_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153F70Blhreml502mbs_
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153F70Blhreml502mbs_"

--_000_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153F70Blhreml502mbs_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153F70Blhreml502mbs_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ks_c_5601-1987"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable









    

    Hi all,=

    

     <=
/p>

    I am also supporting the =
SFC WG adoption of this draft, since the SFC control plane is an important =
topic that the SFC WG needs to address.
    

     <=
/p>

    Best regards,<=
/span>
    

    Georgios
    

     <=
/p>

     <=
/p>

     <=
/p>

    

    

    

    From: sfc [mai=
lto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of ???(SDN Project)
    
Sent: 20 August 2015 06:13
    
To: Jim Guichard (jguichar); sfc@ietf.org
    
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plan=
e-06
    

    

    

     
    

    

    Support the=
 adoption of the draft.
    

     
    

    IMHO, for S=
FC resiliency, the aspect of high availability of SF/SFF should be emphasiz=
ed, including failover of SF.
    

    Some attrib=
utes of SFF(e.g. high capacity) and SF(mandatory/optional) could be conside=
red
    

    for dynamic=
 path selection and connectivity of SFs.
    

    (ht=
tp://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kang-sfc-dynamic-path-selection/)

    

    Dynamic pat=
h selection of multiple instances of SF can be used for policy-based load b=
alancing as well.
    

     
    

    Draft-ww-sf=
c-control-plane-06 treats resiliency and load balancing,<=
/p>

    and I think=
 these parts could be further extended with support of WG.
    

     
    

    Best Regard=
s,
    

    Taeho
    

     
    

    

    3D"=
    

    

     
    

    

    

    From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
    
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 1:49 AM
    
To: sfc@ietf.org
    
Subject: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06=

    

    

    

     
    

    

    Greetings WG:
    

    

    

     

    

    

    This message begins a 2 wee=
k call for WG adoption of the document https://datat=
racker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending
 26th August 2015.
    

    

    

     

    

    

    Please respond to the SFC m=
ailing list with any statements of approval or disapproval.
    

    

    

     

    

    

    As always please note the f=
ollowing:
    

    

      

    1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG i=
s expected to modify the document=A1=AFs content until there is
 WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose ad=
option just because you want to see changes to its content.
    2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please s=
tate your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address
 your concerns.
    3. If you have issues with the c=
ontent, by all means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about how=
 best to address them.
    

    

    Finally, now is also a good=
 time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, in line =
with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG participants
 (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed a=
s a document author please respond to this email (to the chairs) whether or=
 not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
    

    

    

     

    

    

    Jim & Thomas
    

    

    

     
    

    

    =C0=CC
=B8=DE=C0=
=CF=C0=BA
=C1=F6=C1=
=A4=B5=C8
=BC=F6=C3=
=EB=C0=CE=B8=B8=C0=BB
=C0=A7=C7=
=D8
=C0=DB=BC=
=BA=B5=C7=BE=FA=C0=B8=B8=E7,
=C1=DF=BF=
=E4=C7=D1
=C1=A4=BA=
=B8=B3=AA
=C0=FA=C0=
=DB=B1=C7=C0=BB
=C6=F7=C7=
=D4=C7=CF=B0=ED
=C0=D6=C0=
=BB
=BC=F6
=C0=D6=BD=
=C0=B4=CF=B4=D9.
=BE=EE=B6=
=B0=C7=D1
=B1=C7=C7=
=D1
=BE=F8=C0=
=CC,
=BA=BB
=B9=AE=BC=
=AD=BF=A1
=C6=F7=C7=
=D4=B5=C8
=C1=A4=BA=
=B8=C0=C7
=C0=FC=BA=
=CE
=B6=C7=B4=
=C2
=C0=CF=BA=
=CE=B8=A6
=B9=AB=B4=
=DC=C0=B8=B7=CE
=C1=A63=C0=DA=BF=A1=B0=D4
=B0=F8=B0=
=B3,
=B9=E8=C6=
=F7,
=BA=B9=BB=
=E7
=B6=C7=B4=
=C2
=BB=E7=BF=
=EB=C7=CF=B4=C2
=B0=CD=C0=
=BB
=BE=F6=B0=
=DD=C8=F7
=B1=DD=C1=
=F6=C7=D5=B4=CF=B4=D9.
=B8=B8=BE=
=E0,
=BA=BB
=B8=DE=C0=
=CF=C0=CC
=C0=DF=B8=
=F8
=C0=FC=BC=
=DB=B5=C8
=B0=E6=BF=
=EC,
=B9=DF=BD=
=C5=C0=CE
=B6=C7=B4=
=C2
=B4=E7=BB=
=E7=BF=A1
=BE=CB=B7=
=C1=C1=D6=BD=C3=B0=ED,
=BA=BB
=B8=DE=C0=
=CF=C0=BB
=C1=EF=BD=
=C3
=BB=E8=C1=
=A6=C7=CF=BF=A9
=C1=D6=BD=
=C3=B1=E2
=B9=D9=B6=
=F8=B4=CF=B4=D9.

    
This E-mail may contain confidential information and/or copyright material.=
 This email is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you receive t=
his email by mistake, please either delete it without reproducing, distribu=
ting or retaining copies thereof
 or notify the sender immediately.
    

    

    

    



--_000_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153F70Blhreml502mbs_--

--_004_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153F70Blhreml502mbs_
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png"
Content-Description: image001.png
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=5128;
	creation-date="Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:02:05 GMT";
	modification-date="Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:02:05 GMT"
Content-ID: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAUoAAACbCAIAAACLXkVsAAAAAXNSR0IArs4c6QAAAARnQU1BAACx
jwv8YQUAAAAJcEhZcwAADsIAAA7CARUoSoAAABOdSURBVHhe7Z0JcBVHesfxOmBsL8ttZEBI5tCT
OHUhoacbCYEkkAToQBLCXrwIi3OxsYmPJOtKfG4lq93FiGtzlHOUvU45m1Tk7Hq3KqlUvDbOGgTZ
jcsyt4RtjNBDIC6bJd9M98z0zJt5b4SepPc6/199JfV8/fXXPT3zn+7Bfk/DPvmkHQaDSWnDbgMA
JAXyBkBaIG8ApAXyBkBaIG8ApAXyBkBaIG8ApAXyBkBaIG8ApAXyBkBaIG8ApAXyBkBaIG8ApAXy
BiAI165f7+3tvapx69YtXtFH9BSUjXJy70ACeQPgyMXu7h07d9ave7imtq56TS1ZxerKs2fP8mrX
fHT48PoNjfUN69bUr62pq6dsGzdtvuPHhHsgbwAc+du/+/vyilVVldWrV1etXlVFhZy8xSdOnODV
rtmyfXtdfYNidWvJ6usbqmprIW8AhpIf7d69fEV5RcWq8vKVZCtXrl5cWHji5Ele7ZoNjzWtqa2v
rF5TpVp1TW3t2rWQNwBDye49e0pKV5Cwy8oqyEjnJO+TfZc3bcVJ0qtpF6BaZVVN7doGyBuAoYTk
XVxcuqKsgtZwsrLylfl3JO/Gpk2VldWrVlUyo61+BMi7tXHYsMZWfhAMCvY2t1OhvdnLS04EjwBg
MCB5L11W0n950+acVE17e2ZUrm1wkHdINR9Y3orO/NEVbSdvmyZMqZA3iDhe29OydGnx8uVlpaUr
yFasKF9ccCfyXtu0uWjlasNWVZY/8m1ep3HrwgXfi6/e+M1hfhwK+rh6K8IzBO0kb1tpBpC3kico
rrcJAIQKkndR0TISdknJcrLlpWX5JO9Tp3i1wM0T7TcO/cfN939189e/vPlf7978z5/f/Pd3bvzq
X7/6xb/ceOdnP6la9WJu/qtZecxezs7/i6Liy2++9fVbb1/7hzeuNP/4YtPWc6ne0zGeax8c4hlD
Qd/kbdFzqOQNQHjyWkvLkqKlJGx6AycrLVnuL+8rv/1dZ+P6z2vyfFsrLm9f1dO0oufRpZfWFviq
crrLMroLU3wZC67Nn9P7kKd3Wpxu12I8vtj4C7GeL2I8n8V6OmI9pO2TsZ5rH/43zxsK+iJvRc0m
XQqrrq7yfslbSKiBRRsMHSTvwiVLSdjLlpWQUSF/sUnevo8Of5yx6LOVmb4t5Zd3VPZsWtHznWWX
Ggp81bnd5d7upakXMxMvLpjbNTOhKzbeYhdi48+TtmMUbZ9RtX081nP1gw956lDgWt6KKK1aU9QY
qtVbze8vZlXwDg8DAAaYPS0tBQVL6PWbtuhkVMjLL9Dlfa2j83e5eZ2li7qbll9+vPLylvKeDcWX
1hX6anJ9FZndxQu7c5MuJs/rirPRNtn5WM/nMZ5O0nas5xRpO8bTHuO5+puPWPKQ4EreDtJzlLcZ
HhFY3napOAGqABhQ9rTszafteGERsyVLlubmLz6hyfvTh799rmih77GS3icqe7dV9G4sufJwQc+a
nJ4K76XihZdyF/hS5vpmxXdHx/n8rCt61hdTZ30WPatj2qzT0+Jo6f50esKnS0u+6u5myUNCMHlz
tdrLy0netqutEqwDeYNIYM/evXn5i/M1W7y4IDsv//SZM1TV+dIrXxZ7z68vvbitpntrTdemyi83
rPzikRXn6ks6q4s6Kwo6luWdzcs+syizM91L1kEF1c4pP1VPuvdkesbxlLRPs7Lbq6rP/Wj3zc8/
Z/2GikDyZoIMoKy+yjvA6s2fI36dqWOwzQfAgNOyb19uXn5OTh6z3Jz8tNw8X1dX18/+uSV+1vKp
DyaOHZc4ZmzSmHHzRo9JiY75t4M/6T56rKvtKNkF1bra2s4fO7a1uipu7JgE1WaPHRM/dvT68rIv
jx673Hb00tFj1zvP/f7rr3mXIcXtuzdfxUXsRXen8lZhDxQTWLfB0LF3376c3LzMzGxmWZk5eYVF
P/+nt+sy0sdFPTjmgUnjJ0WNj4oaN2lS1JSplQ0Nv3f4n1IaNmyYNHnyxKgHmU2IiiqrqeF1A4kb
eduvoA7Lbb/kzQkeAcBgsHff/uycvEWLvBkZmcyysnMycnKT0jMWLSLzKpaekZ2dW75yVUdnJ2/m
x+bNW7OycqhJBqVSsnnrwuQjJQG0Zlel+PxQHgKQN4g49u3fn5Wdm5aWnp6+iFlammJqOYOMyl5v
ZsGSokMfBvoPWpu3bqMHQUrKwtTUNGbh8omxPsrbEQd52+zHncFOHQwq+w4coPValKW/5S8u/Me3
3+YNHCB5py5MW7AgMTExiVltfbh8ILRPm3NH+rB6AxAe7D9w0JuZlbggMSkp2daSk1OqXXwxw+Yt
WxMTk+fMmTd37nxmtfX1YSJvBSZmE32UKOQNIo4DBw9meDPnzZtHC69q9CNp/nzlF7f5tCInv/L9
7/MGDmzavIW07fHEx8cnKOZJqK0LJ3n3H8gbRBz7Dx6k1+zZs+fMnUsL77w5c+YmpaQmJqdQgXlU
57zEpOQ3f/pT3saOpk2bSdUzZ86cNSuOjAq1dXVSyRuAiINW75TUNI8nISFhDhlJNCsru+HhR2h3
HR8/mzkTEmZTOTUt/dAhx39de6ypafr0mTExsbGxD5FRobYW8gZgSKF3b3rBpvWW9tVkcXEe2qv/
78cfk8JJ6nSo++nnsuKSnp4e3tLMho0bo6On6TZ16lTZNucARBy0etOb9vTpM2hbTTZjxszklNTz
5893dHQUl5YyJ7cZM0nhf/bCC7aifXTDhqioqAc1qLimtpbXDSSQNwCOkLzpvZv20g89NJ2MCiTv
U6dOU9WJEyfS0tL1KjLadXviE15+5VXWVmT9o98ZP37ChAkTmY0fP552Ae+992tePWBA3gA4Qptz
UuzUqdHTpsWQUSEpOeX0aUXexF/99d/Qi7deS0Yb74TZc954800WoNO0afMYhbGM0aNH02Luzcza
um3740/s3LJ128bHKGTL8ePHeYMQAXkD4Mj+Awdo4z1lyhTSMNmUyVNSUhfq8iaefe6PaMc+eTIP
oJdqilmQmPT+Bx/wCJUf/KB57Lhx999//6hRo775TfoxipUnTlQWc5L9vffeR4+GI0eO8AYhAvIG
wJH9+w/ExsbS2/JkFSosTEsX5X3lypWGdeuio6NpNdZj6GdBYeEZ9XOjjLa2tllxccOHD7/XzD33
3DOSbOTIESNG0EPk6LFjvEGIgLwBcITkTWvyxIkPKEx8gFbalFR69zZ919rp02cKCpdMmjSJalnk
xAkTSeMNDQ29vb086PbtF158kWR/1113feMbd9999x8w0xhO/kmToo4caePRIQLyBsCR3a+9Rhtz
Eq36z96To6fFlFVU+Hw+Xq1BW/G8vHx696ZdOhkFk9Rps719x46rV6+ymOvXr7/00svz5y8Y9a1v
3XfffbR0jxxJq/fI4SNGkNyJhIQEy4Oj/0DeADjy7ru/fGLnk7t27Xr66Wf+8OlnSJ9Ofz+wo7Nz
T0vLM88+S0bBT+3atXPnk9/d8Xhb21EeoUJhr7/++vPPP//sc8+RqcFPP/nUU3/yve8dPhzKbzhn
QN4ASAvkDYC0QN4ASAvkDYC0BJG38TFv7SOc5BG+wsHmY+CWD3uKEfoHQvGtKwAMAgHl3dpofBuL
+pUtjIDibG00ydt02NqoNIW8ARgcAsm7vblRUCoXajBxWuSN1RuAIWMAVu9g2oW8ARgcXL97a4o0
xCkI3h81xi7C29wKeQMwKASRtz8Oa691T27G1AirNwCDQ1B5WzfbfZa3koA30ldzyBuAQaDP8nYg
sLx5kYHVG4DBYQjkDQAYHFzIm2+oDeyEHEjevJkIFA/AwNPnf1oDAEQKkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5
AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAt
kDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA
0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0gJ5AyAtkDcA0nKn
8m5tHDZsmLe5nR/+f4SmoLGVlwEIRxzlrerXScHtzV63dzaFqomMVObGRr2BfaetjUEeJ+qQjdSB
Bhk0lwsCyTvg7IUM4Syow751Zpl39UxMsxI0wAQ/Yf2U9WMVY55Uv3Foe42Etm7PqQ+nH4pLHzEE
WL1pyvynnhGgyowYKFy1gI0d5l+53QJfGGrY2OjVY4ZS3sFqQ0N/zqK9udGvrSlf0AADmmnd39qs
lkynr1x5HuDmGhm9UEPbDvtDfyYt4nAhb+USNPNHuTIzis4Yja3KXDXzi2f49StrvkX4xNpeUgHb
+adG3uZW4TayQW1o3FdCP8r9ZQxMP+InoGZURs/C1a4Un+LiGImM89V7UuO0CA2n2bPzMKfqILRm
Wh0vWiPEs2BJ+QisgazS2qO9etUQ1ipogIE+EwYWFz8HxU+/jUph2AbCDcAjxWlXG6nDILTGQh4+
RmGUmocceqVRKzXu5C3Mq+rSqtTp8psoCtOujx7Iyhp+TURaG63VQi+2HXL4baH1qV1y4dLrRf0O
Ej2kAcVnpNHOwiiL3bN+hJM1IYzCMnv+Hru+jLz6WDm2NeRk47JJZdcjlYIszn1YvYUONLTT19DG
Z0yueqgPW8ToRQuj33o67aRMZS2PkI8X6ZfWtLVV+e10DlLiTt7ahGizp1VZ5kq5CgzDq0wvg0+y
nkSMt0HrQC/q2PkUtMHwAQuDFWAhxrh5lPJMYU5eZT4zI5fhpbxeQogSoVq1BR+MAk/i77HtSwsz
Ko0T4R6hHW8UOJXhUQs8GcNvHNYApcqc3QyLZ8nVsWpFFa1fLQMdKwXNbUK4YLxS6Nf2BIX0vKEK
RfJ+BAKdg3S43JzzSyDMInOZ5l24toFmUMgnEnTa7ZYTE0YGtQtjsP6JBZ8axo6Vn628F3Mru1x0
wqRu4Ulmwnn2/D32fdFvcmt1dtMrtNMa2abSKg3PgKENUxiuAjsXKhjjU0diOxzzOSgIHtsT1H/7
NdU71vHPLjEhk7cxj1Qy3fPWzbaQTyTotPdB3uoISXtqP8p4tA75P/wo1foYKC+h+ikDb8QyaOn0
sqULJVSME9B6EM6WF/09phxGmWr14Shl3asFaH0QelK7VHqlqahmsqA35VhC9KZmhCus5ReGpibR
EjtcIxP+d4K1lXagl7Vula60hOxaCx5tc+50GhLiKG+aBQWaPW3qCK2oT5Fl3nmTZtP18X+XtsX/
ohopbfHLas6gtOUhyiW2tGGZtZPQbhjx7hCb6Xkt58tjlWTmwbP09rPn72EltYUpkeLUQrWUVG9M
L/P5J1UDjVTmSj2jWFaxXgLjDBnUwBygYXQpTomOkMTxGgn43wlmj9Gb7jVOxajUE2tjMQ3Nv1sZ
CbB6h4p+yBsMJIYmOHcs7yHHOlLAGBR5q89OEbubBPIebIyFTsd6CSwh4SohvwcVYAyCvAEYONji
gZXBHsgbAGmBvAGQFsgbAGmBvAGQFsgbAGmBvAGQFsgbAGmBvAGQFsgbAGmBvAGQlmGffNLO7OzZ
DjrWD3t7r1640IUqVKEqcquwegMgLZA3ANICeQMgLZA3ANICeQMgLZA3ANICeQMgLZA3ANICeQMg
LZA3ANISSN4333uf7Kv/+S07/PrMWeZhhw7oX3ts/vJKxW35OkuHSBHje3i177n1+1ZlpbF7pxXz
F/0aX6ZrNzYj1tYZGd/Eq19E3fTra4ftNXLvtNDPbGHSRSQRSN5dU2aQ+ZYsZ4dUYB52aIdys/Pb
XJkoVlQVoPwBWnHKbCMtUIXWRCgKkNe/oXsnQcPwz+t4FtxpFIVhCcVw5uqf/5BdRN0uVdbxOivB
5iGI00I/s4VJFxFGcHmT0SOfTD/k1f7Q/Bi3uOnAehgoUoOm2JhhuxjbP3zg3qlgl9Z+bOJotHLQ
EYYftFyTwi9/90m6jt3pOVS+/sZbvM6C7Ty4d1pw39C904L7hu6dEY6jvEU9Xzvwl3QT6IeO2zmz
imiGhAegeb4CRWqYxGM5ImwvgHsng6r4bsxYex3GRgNgfiNdkBGGLyRyuo7O67aK7Ty4d1roZ7Yw
6SLScJQ3uwPoAU8/e9ZvJGM3BP2kKh5khmbEMkHCoekoYKSOLig1wrJbshWTe6cfSg9qbwHGpo5C
3IMHHGEY40betvPg3skPNNw3dO/kBxruG7p38oOIJYi8afNGCr+YkEhGCg8sb7rbLRMk3O7m6bKN
pF9sIdV1QvJhWP/qqCUBJ7jTvwsDbbz2Z6G0ZH6jRDiPMJxxI2/7eXDvVKaJ07eGYdVFhBNc3uw9
jYz250HlLYrGb7qEw0CRtpgbmJNx3Dvt0bqwHZvVKR4x7Hzhikt5u5gHZ6eFfmYLky4iDUd5s5dt
kveNd37B5H3Ld+nKH/9pIHkrYtKmiCbLND8WnQWI1GlvbeVuS4j5QnDcOwW0P+dvGpDd2ASf6HUa
YZjjSt7218i900I/s4VJFxGGo7xJ2EzepGq6D0jYopPF2KBMkbFdYtBcCWjTZhdpQQ8xTTV5/afe
vdOMMTYx0m5shk/w6s5g/YQX7uRtPw99cFroZ7Yw6SKicJQ3ACDSgbwBkBbIGwBpgbwBkBbIGwBp
gbwBkBbIGwBpgbwBkBbIGwBpwZ8QRBWqpK3C6g2ApNy+/X/1b1FRDPaSHAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

--_004_C5034E44CD620A44971BAAEB372655DC0153F70Blhreml502mbs_--


From nobody Fri Aug 21 06:31:30 2015
Return-Path: 
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 B4D161A8FD2 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 RploBi-MJJnD for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3FA71A8F50 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so16253472wic.1 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=eWHn03P10cDOlrlAk9p/tXIOS7KmCJOl2MNtmqPS3us=; b=dOx96QNHcRSRJymPPBIY+GbSMu7XN3ATKjkeZC+rYPW+jESYGdheSK6nXXPhM4zQwD NGhE0Wbdd83JYmwp+kjUYB2i9RPSk+mZycac1dBZKw+ix7CmqZ+Irx878H748EQd2i1n fiuFSqx2YAB1cJi57WAaXeeYGGKOAZtqtWl89qVm29ThMq9A0YG4IlHsGToJLJ/9AXjP e/Lb+JAf/k1XyNiL6tG+hF6RI4q3dx9OHlRKS20Qyz4dDSoZcsCvtvI3pqBQTOfEGx/O 22eADWVtdmPd6yn+kW27PryR5h6XqE1RcdvFsbLvwyNkwJk0ZWwdsCzWfWC9lvWlE7m9 U77w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkAsABttgqGp0usSUmOLvs6NbVFPlvfcH8w9gA0wDtnFLwn0q56/gXwXkKO7i4xu63kUQXA
X-Received: by 10.180.91.40 with SMTP id cb8mr6471031wib.54.1440163885283; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:193c:4ec0:623d:62bd? ([2001:660:330f:a4:193c:4ec0:623d:62bd]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bi6sm10054012wjc.25.2015.08.21.06.31.24 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4646D6F4-9B11-41D4-B0AD-729C5DE24F5A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Luigi Iannone 
In-Reply-To: 
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:31:47 +0200
Message-Id: 
References: 
To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" 
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: 
Cc: "sfc@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG call for adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:31:28 -0000

--Apple-Mail=_4646D6F4-9B11-41D4-B0AD-729C5DE24F5A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252

Support WG adoption.

ciao
L.

> On 12 Aug 2015, at 18:49, Jim Guichard (jguichar)  =
wrote:
>=20
> Greetings WG:
>=20
> This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the document =
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ =
 ending =
26th August 2015.
>=20
> Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any statements of approval =
or disapproval.
>=20
> As always please note the following:
> This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, and the WG is =
expected to modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus =
that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose adoption just =
because you want to see changes to its content.
> If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your =
reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your concerns.
> If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues =
and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.
> Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that =
applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for =
WG participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). =
If you are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to =
the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
>=20
> Jim & Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc


--Apple-Mail=_4646D6F4-9B11-41D4-B0AD-729C5DE24F5A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=windows-1252

Support WG adoption.

    ciao
    L.

    On 12 Aug 2015, at 18:49, Jim Guichard (jguichar) <jguichar@cisco.com> =
wrote:

    




    

    Greetings WG:
    


    

    

    This message begins a 2 week call for WG adoption of the =
document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ww-sfc-control-plane/ ending 26th August 2015.
    


    

    

    Please respond to the SFC mailing list with any =
statements of approval or disapproval.
    


    

    

    As always please note the following:
    

      

    1. This is not a WG last call. The document is not final, =
and the WG is expected to modify the document=92s content until there is =
WG consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please do not oppose =
adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.
    2. If you have objections to adoption of the document, please =
state your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address your =
concerns.
    3. If you have issues with the content, by all =
means raise those issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to =
address them.
    

    Finally, =
now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to =
this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG =
participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more
 details). If you are listed as a document author please respond to this =
email (to the chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant =
IPR.
    


    

    

    Jim & Thomas
    

    

_______________________________________________
    sfc =
mailing list
    sfc@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

    =

--Apple-Mail=_4646D6F4-9B11-41D4-B0AD-729C5DE24F5A--


From nobody Thu Aug 27 16:21:00 2015
Return-Path: 
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 61F691B30E1 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 3CLf0jLSy4nA for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CC091B3080 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1578; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440717653; x=1441927253; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=C7vOwZ8LJfT6pdxKNgiru+ChNrlyPAyytiUOAHzz110=; b=SPr9ZkjXubdQzUaMaigOH4eOCZ+KP2w3jmycmhvPmPc2DKV2ke4xdeSJ FdYiEGVsZCVbfy1cj0TLRfvtfXn5gjgsaZcZ9RZ/3C2Y5DdbzjflytY+Y 2CC0yp5GxF8c3kVuDHQ87QOGBXJsOSP5PcLgzZDnAOllQtC0tu7eNruZt M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CoAgD8md9V/5tdJa1egk5NgUO1HYhYAQmJMjgUAQEBAQEBAX8LhBoQgQsBCwF0JwSIQaFlpFUBAQgBAQEBHpUfBZU9AYlmgwyBSoQyjDGINCaDf4I5gQUBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.17,423,1437436800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="27791531"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2015 23:20:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (xch-rcd-015.cisco.com [173.37.102.25]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7RNKq5j022209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:20:52 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:20:51 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (173.36.12.77) by xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:20:51 -0500
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.191]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:20:51 -0500
From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" 
To: "sfc@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
Thread-Index: AQHQ4R8Dz5OmUfL7a0y6DegaW5vkog==
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:20:51 +0000
Message-ID: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.27]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D205139122882jguicharciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:20:58 -0000

--_000_D205139122882jguicharciscocom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

We have received good support for the adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plan=
e-06 as a working group draft. Authors, please post a new version as draft-=
ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00.

As part of the adoption process a number of comments were made on the draft=
. Authors, please review these comments and update the new draft where appr=
opriate.

Jim & Thomas

--_000_D205139122882jguicharciscocom_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <037500AF29DBED41B4C4BEFF22C2E90A@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable







    

    

    Greetings,
    


    

    

    We have received good support for the adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control=
-plane-06 as a working group draft. Authors, please post a new version as d=
raft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00. 
    

    


    

    

    As part of the adoption process a number of comments were made on the =
draft. Authors, please review these comments and update the new draft where=
 appropriate.
    


    

    

    Jim & Thomas
    

    



--_000_D205139122882jguicharciscocom_--


From nobody Thu Aug 27 23:29:18 2015
Return-Path: 
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 E86361B2A9A for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 RcEotwpSbKNM for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FD0C1ACD95 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CAN07372; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 06:29:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.72) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:29:11 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.106]) by SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:29:04 +0800
From: "Huangyong (Oliver)" 
To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" , "sfc@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
Thread-Index: AQHQ4R8Dz5OmUfL7a0y6DegaW5vkop4g8oTQ
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 06:29:04 +0000
Message-ID: <8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E67021@szxema506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.66.108.172]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E67021szxema506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 06:29:16 -0000

--_000_8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E67021szxema506mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jim,

Good news.   I think there is a mistake that you said the new version name =
as "draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00", Should it be "draft-ietf-sfc-control-=
plane-00"?

BR
Oliver
------------------------------------------
Huangyong (Oliver Huang)
Future Network Research,2012 Lab, Huawei

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar=
)
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 7:21 AM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06

Greetings,

We have received good support for the adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plan=
e-06 as a working group draft. Authors, please post a new version as draft-=
ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00.

As part of the adoption process a number of comments were made on the draft=
. Authors, please review these comments and update the new draft where appr=
opriate.

Jim & Thomas

--_000_8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E67021szxema506mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable









    

    Jim,<=
/o:p>
    

     
    

    Good news.   I think there is a mistake that =
you said the new version name as “draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00”,
 Should it be “draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-00”?
    

     
    

    BR
    

    Oliver
    

    

    ------------------------------=
------------
    

    Huangyong (Oliver Huang)
    

    Future Network Research,2012 L=
ab, Huawei<=
/p>

    

     =
;
    

    

    

    From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
    
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 7:21 AM
    
To: sfc@ietf.org
    
Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    

    Greetings,
    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    We have recei=
ved good support for the adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 as a wor=
king group draft. Authors, please post a new version as draft-ietf-sfc-oam-=
framework-00. 
    

    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    As part of th=
e adoption process a number of comments were made on the draft. Authors, pl=
ease review these comments and update the new draft where
 appropriate.
    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    Jim & Tho=
mas
    

    

    

    



--_000_8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E67021szxema506mbxchi_--


From nobody Fri Aug 28 05:09:23 2015
Return-Path: 
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 A123A1AC3DB for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 05:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 SGJOEtuI2DxE for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 05:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06CB11AC3D7 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 05:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9884; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440763761; x=1441973361; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=3R85t830qvoRtU09Htprz0Ew2tJ/DwCwyGDCuyPnEQI=; b=fHMlSVU0YNjJiPmJoYVmEaFCKBU7Qeogm9xU7DBOC4T2pcZRpa4kJPCp aZfG8gCBQ0yhoXT7FFgMlsvxsfLBkEoGFOAqR7l77wsoOj0VTv1uJtOPK /ATx7okTZ8HtM4sdvvhwHrbmhptmrRKC6DmSLI4xAyu8uU08NB9Hk0Ei8 c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CxAgCFTuBV/4kNJK1egk5NVGkGtSKIVgEJh3MCgT84FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBBC1cAgEIEQMBAQEoBzIUCQgCBAESGogUw3QBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXhm2EdYQdXRcBhCwBBIcqhUKIUQGJZoMMgUqEMowziDQmgg8cgVRxgUiBBQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.17,424,1437436800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="22447338"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2015 12:09:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-009.cisco.com (xch-aln-009.cisco.com [173.36.7.19]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7SC9KHj002785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:09:20 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com (173.36.7.19) by XCH-ALN-009.cisco.com (173.36.7.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:09:19 -0500
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (173.37.183.77) by xch-aln-009.cisco.com (173.36.7.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:09:19 -0500
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.191]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:09:19 -0500
From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" 
To: "Huangyong (Oliver)" , "sfc@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
Thread-Index: AQHQ4R8Dz5OmUfL7a0y6DegaW5vkop4g8oTQgABwtwA=
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:09:18 +0000
Message-ID: 
References:  <8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E67021@szxema506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <8172B566C79A4A4C8EB6C7B1F6529EFC61E67021@szxema506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.27]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D205C79722EC8jguicharciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:09:22 -0000

--_000_D205C79722EC8jguicharciscocom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, sorry, my bad =85

Jim

From: "Huangyong (Oliver)" >
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 11:29 PM
To: Jim Guichard >, "sfc@ietf=
.org" >
Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06

Jim,

Good news.   I think there is a mistake that you said the new version name =
as =93draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00=94, Should it be =93draft-ietf-sfc-co=
ntrol-plane-00=94?

BR
Oliver
------------------------------------------
Huangyong (Oliver Huang)
Future Network Research,2012 Lab, Huawei

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar=
)
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 7:21 AM
To: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06

Greetings,

We have received good support for the adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plan=
e-06 as a working group draft. Authors, please post a new version as draft-=
ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00.

As part of the adoption process a number of comments were made on the draft=
. Authors, please review these comments and update the new draft where appr=
opriate.

Jim & Thomas

--_000_D205C79722EC8jguicharciscocom_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <60D95E7B0101B546B1ED4867B8D80FFF@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable







    Yes, sorry, my bad =85 
    


    

    

    Jim
    


    

    


    
From: "Huangyong (Oliver)"=
; <oliver.huang@huawei.com>
    
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2015 at =
11:29 PM
    
To: Jim Guichard <    jguichar@cisco.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <s=
fc@ietf.org>
    
Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-w=
w-sfc-control-plane-06
    

    


    

    

    



    

    

    Jim,
    

     
    

    Good news.   I think there is a mistake that you said=
 the new version name as =93draft-ietf-sfc-oam=
-framework-00=94,
 Should it be =93draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-00=94?
    

     
    

    BR
    

    Oliver<=
/span>
    

    

    ------------------------------------------
    

    Huangyong (Oliver Huang)
    

    Future Network Research,2012 Lab, Huawei
    

    

     <=
/span>
    

    

    

    From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Guichard (jguichar)
    
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 7:21 AM
    
To: sfc@ietf.org
    
Subject: [sfc] WG adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06
    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    

    Greetings,

    

    

     
    

    

    

    We have received good support =
for the adoption of draft-ww-sfc-control-plane-06 as a working group draft.=
 Authors, please post a new version as
 draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00. 
    

    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    As part of the adoption proces=
s a number of comments were made on the draft. Authors, please review these=
 comments and update the new draft where
 appropriate.
    

    

    

     
    

    

    

    Jim & Thomas
    

    

    

    

    

    
    



--_000_D205C79722EC8jguicharciscocom_--


From nobody Fri Aug 28 15:28:16 2015
Return-Path: 
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 8B4331A8A3E; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 Aw0aykP65ugE; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA96B1A8A44; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: 
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150828222813.32072.72829.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:28:13 -0700
Archived-At: 
Cc: sfc@ietf.org
Subject: [sfc] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-00.txt
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: Network Service Chaining 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:28:15 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Service Function Chaining Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Service Function Chaining (SFC) Control Plane Components & Requirements
        Authors         : Hongyu Li
                          Qin Wu
                          Yong(Oliver) Huang
                          Mohamed Boucadair
                          Christian Jacquenet
                          Walter Haeffner
                          Seungik Lee
                          Ron Parker
                          Linda Dunbar
                          Andrew Malis
                          Joel M. Halpern
                          Tirumaleswar Reddy
                          Prashanth Patil
	Filename        : draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-00.txt
	Pages           : 26
	Date            : 2015-08-28

Abstract:
   This document describes requirements for conveying information
   between Service Function Chaining (SFC) control elements (including
   management components) and SFC functional elements.  Also, this
   document identifies a set of control interfaces to interact with SFC-
   aware elements to establish, maintain or recover service function
   chains.  This document does not specify protocols nor extensions to
   existing protocols.

   This document exclusively focuses on SFC deployments that are under
   the responsibility of a single administrative entity.  Inter-domain
   considerations are out of scope.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-00


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/