Subject: [sfc] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-sfc-01-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 10:07:25 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-sfc-01-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sfc/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

MD-1 is explained (as fixed-length), but MD-2 is not explained in this charter.

I'm not sure who is responsible for the determining in this text:

"What can be effectively provided, for which scenarios,
and how those tools can be provided need to be determined and the tools
standardized."

Could you rephrase this as active voice?

Thank you for including Transport Considerations at the charter level.

Should it be obvious to me why the first deliverable is a base set of MD-2 type
codes, with MD-1 type codes being pushed off to other drafts? Is there more to
this than "we're just going to do variable length to get started"?

Is "active, passive, and hybrid OAM" related to the work in IPPM? If so,
probably worth adding them to the "will coordinate with" list.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 13:18:16 -0500

With regard to your question about MD-2 Types and MD-1 definitions, the 
difference is tha tthe base MD-2 types document is standards track.  The 
MD-1 documents are informational.  Thus, as chair I expect the WG to put 
more energy into the standards track document.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 21:13:40 -0600

Hi, Joel,

> more energy into the standards track document.

That all makes sense. What I was confused about was that all the MD-1
(fixed-length) definitions are informational - but maybe that's just the
way things are?

Spencer

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 22:18:55 -0500

The MD-1 usage is indeed somewhat unusual.
Yes, all the layouts are informational.

It is up to deployment and control to make sure that all participants 
know what layout (or in interesting cases layouts) is being used.  There 
is no layout identification (other than that it is MD-1) in the packet 
format.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/7/18 10:13 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Hi, Joel,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     With regard to your question about MD-2 Types and MD-1 definitions,
>     the difference is tha tthe base MD-2 types document is standards
>     track.  The MD-1 documents are informational.  Thus, as chair I
>     expect the WG to put more energy into the standards track document.
> 
> 
>         <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sfc/>
> 
> 
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 21:35:31 -0600

Hi, Joel,

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:18 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It is up to deployment and control to make sure that all participants know
> what layout (or in interesting cases layouts) is being used.  There is no
> layout identification (other than that it is MD-1) in the packet format.
>

It sounds like https://thenewstack.io/not-expected-understand-explainer/
applies, but I'm OK with that :-)

Thanks for your help in understanding what's going on here.

Spencer