From nobody Tue Oct 15 01:28:48 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97AF1200FE for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 01:28:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bh9OYiV3iq4Y for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 01:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blaze.cs.jhu.edu (blaze.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.50]) (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 E3E37120129 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 01:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web3.cs.jhu.edu (web3.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.76]) (user=soudeh mech=LOGIN bits=0) by blaze.cs.jhu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x9F8ShCS042409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 04:28:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 04:28:43 -0400 From: Soudeh Ghorbani To: sfc@ietf.org Reply-To: soudeh@cs.jhu.edu Mail-Reply-To: soudeh@cs.jhu.edu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: X-Sender: soudeh@cs.jhu.edu User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.12 Received-SPF: None client-ip=128.220.13.76; helo=web3.cs.jhu.edu; envelope-from= receiver=blaze.cs.jhu.edu Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on SDN Research (SOSR) 2020 CFP X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 08:28:47 -0000 Just a friendly reminder that SOSR's submission deadline is in almost 1 month. * Abstract registration: Nov 8, 2019 * Submission deadline: Nov 15, 2019 * Submission website: https://sosr20.hotcrp.com * More information: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sosr/2020/calls.html --- Soudeh Ghorbani Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University soudeh.net On 2019-09-25 19:44, Soudeh Ghorbani wrote: > We are excited to announce that the ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on SDN > Research (SOSR) 2020 will be co-located with the Open Compute Project > (OCP) Global Summit. > > New this year, in addition to traditional research papers, we are > soliciting "Experience and Challenge" papers that provide a > retrospective of the practical impacts of SDN deployments and outline > next steps, challenges, and radical ideas for SDNs. > > * Abstract registration: Nov 8, 2019 > * Submission deadline: Nov 15, 2019 > * More information: > https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sosr/2020/calls.html > > Submit your best papers! > -- > Soudeh Ghorbani > Assistant Professor > Department of Computer Science > Johns Hopkins University > soudeh.net From nobody Tue Oct 15 04:11:35 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74CE31200DF; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 04:11:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 Lx7cGD00_LNG; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 04:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x32c.google.com (mail-wm1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) (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 E5A001200F3; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 04:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id 3so19833768wmi.3; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 04:11:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eLD7+omLh4zJTDbm4gnME9KBppL5JUohtXNp+zZ8EqY=; b=hGBdZT1/uvPZDucfZQxxlmmUpNKhAFIr1F2Iok9cP9SNzI75wDwIv/eIz5yCJy0BHd AY+0ygxm+KEAxYXsTA5FRSZwy/a/SNUiS0DD9WJAA7w58tWWeL0BV8pJ0lJqHgSkqLux ujPurujUyPVLHL9gl8fKYfJbByTeR6vBbQeJ9PABd9e8t4mgmyht61ijY/OL0ZFYp803 p8zc3tv4u5OH0DbfqsvBOjej98paXNwCBTrCEKZ3IzWJvhxWcLI2VCVUlvxOez6rXK8K o0LZumiXQRGyLV3q55wGsQ8a9N2XiONXOPbQX2jUm0EKqPgJlvdnHzh0B6Bsw4EMFZnM 8Eig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eLD7+omLh4zJTDbm4gnME9KBppL5JUohtXNp+zZ8EqY=; b=pJ7k5AQbnAifQHC/zpooZ8+ROfHbO+1hdt/7SpFrJxGvY/9ju8naZ6wUksy1+kdcGV dIrOXMR4Loi1KnYkxjs/MtvUQZ4LcFo4Z0JKwdSuKkBbFvqnRZeONcrP4M1A+0PL/MIC +YIpQ/xOO08YeTL3NI2q7+iHj8eezTgeZI2q2dcZ1AcR6iNJ9dO28jERByO/ToSfKJNU 9cPEsbA2J0e8unlXsyrRVtYhuv5cxrCYwb2BFp8QT/JyR4i9BxiEHlvf1Mkw1+QBMQ3g c2FIrclGDhi34GLP3kq7B6n4QBDF+rsKMhddrZBOpIK7mBaxPAy3/yoXL7R5stAkpnaG yXXA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVxn7zOGVWH/ZUHIAOSTIq+Lhm70limTwHDgId6a0rNuNCaYoWq mghNXR6ighxIaZt5AfSUYKLf/LBQ9dx5moa1D1g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxI0vagRi3p1Uil+YlMAgKTY6YmsxtKgtjn1dr1DV/IJEbZF8c0qiEZcP/JqtFZO8Gudh7gU4m8nn+OUpDvzm4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2319:: with SMTP id 25mr19679913wmo.3.1571137887848; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 04:11:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <175B6B2A-1318-4D91-AF73-00E590173506@cisco.com> <0A7EAE17-D6C4-4B3B-8958-4106B09C43EB@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: From: Tal Mizrahi Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:11:16 +0300 Message-ID: To: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" Cc: "draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework@ietf.org" , Service Function Chaining IETF list , "sfc-chairs@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b2cd3c0594f10b01" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sfc] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10 X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:11:34 -0000 --000000000000b2cd3c0594f10b01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear authors, This is a reminder that we are waiting for two authors to respond to the IPR call - Sam and Ramki. Cheers, Tal. On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:30 AM Tal Mizrahi wrote: > Hi Nagendra, authors, > > Many thanks for addressing the comments and posting the updated draft. > > We are still waiting for two remaining authors to respond to the IPR call: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/b5FHtp2IB-8MQLEMCZkOwnN5Aqk > > Once we complete the IPR call we can proceed with the publication process. > > Thanks, > Tal. > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:31 PM Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) < > naikumar@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Tal, >> >> >> >> Thank you again for the review and comments. We have submitted a new >> revision addressing the comments. >> >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11.txt >> >> has been successfully submitted by Nagendra Kumar and posted to the >> >> IETF repository. >> >> >> >> Name: draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework >> >> Revision: 11 >> >> Title: Service Function Chaining (SFC) Operations, >> Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Framework >> >> Document date: 2019-09-19 >> >> Group: sfc >> >> Pages: 21 >> >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11.txt >> >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework/ >> >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11 >> >> Htmlized: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework >> >> Diff: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11 >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Nagendra >> >> >> >> *From: *Nagendra Kumar >> *Date: *Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:29 AM >> *To: *Tal Mizrahi , " >> draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework@ietf.org" < >> draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework@ietf.org>, Service Function Chaining IETF >> list , "sfc-chairs@ietf.org" >> *Subject: *Re: [sfc] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10 >> *Resent-From: * >> *Resent-To: *, , Nagendra >> Kumar , , > > >> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:28 AM >> >> >> >> Hi Tal, >> >> >> >> Thank you for the comments. We will address the same and will submit a >> new version. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Nagendra >> >> >> >> *From: *sfc on behalf of Tal Mizrahi < >> tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> >> *Date: *Monday, September 2, 2019 at 1:14 AM >> *To: *"draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework@ietf.org" < >> draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework@ietf.org>, Service Function Chaining IETF >> list , "sfc-chairs@ietf.org" >> *Subject: *[sfc] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10 >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I am the assigned shepherd of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10. >> >> I believe the document is almost ready for publication. >> I have a few (mostly editorial) comments, as follows. >> It would be great if the authors could post a new version that addresses >> these comments, and then we can proceed with the publication process. >> >> - RFC 7498 is an informative reference, but the introduction says >> that the reader is expected to be familiar with it. I suggest to change >> either one or the other. >> - Is there a reason why RFC 8459 is a normative reference? I suggest >> to make it informative. >> - Regarding IOAM (Section 6.4.3) - the section describes the >> proof-of-transit draft, but should also mention >> - draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh. >> - Section 1 (Introduction) lists the content in the rest of the >> sections, but does not mention Section 6, which suggests candidate tools. >> - "with the same" ==> "this terminology" >> - "The link layer, which is dependent upon the physical technology >> used." ==> "The link layer, which is tightly coupled with the physical >> technology used." >> - "depicts a sample example" ==> "depicts an example" >> - In Tables 3 and 4, it is not clear why some of the columns are >> separated by "|", and some are separated by "+". >> - "Tables 4" ==> "Table 4" >> - "for fast failure detection" - I suggest to remove the word fast, >> as BFD is not necessarily fast. >> - Section 6..4 says that "This section describes the applicability of >> some of the available toolsets in the service layer.", however, section >> "6.4.4 SFC Traceroute" describes a tool that was defined in an expired >> individual submission. I suggest to either remove section 6.4.4., or to >> explicitly mention that this draft has expired, and that a new tool can be >> defined along the lines of this proposal. >> - Section 3 describes three OAM components (SF, SFC, Classifier), but >> then Section 5 and Section 7 (Table 3, Table 4) do not refer to these three >> components, but to Underlay, Overlay, SF and SFC. Please be consistent, so >> that Section 5-7 refer to the same components that were defined in Section >> 3. >> - Moreover, in Section 3, for each of the first two components (SF >> and SFC) there is a discussion about availability and performance >> measurement. However, for the third component (Classifier), there is no >> explicit discussion about availability and performance measurement. I >> suggest to add this missing discussion (even if these functions are not >> required, it is still important to mention this). >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tal. >> > --000000000000b2cd3c0594f10b01 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear authors,

This is a reminder that w= e are waiting for two authors to respond to the IPR call - Sam and Ramki.

Cheers,
Tal.

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at= 11:30 AM Tal Mizrahi <tal.= mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nagendra, authors,

<= div>Many thanks for addressing the comments and posting the updated draft.<= /div>

We are still waiting for two remaining authors to = respond to the IPR call:


Once we complete the IPR call we = can proceed with the publication process.

Thanks,<= /div>
Tal.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:31 PM Nagendra Kumar Nainar = (naikumar) <naik= umar@cisco.com> wrote:

Hi Tal,

=C2=A0

Thank you again for the review and comments. We have= submitted a new revision addressing the comments.

=C2=A0

A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11.txt

has been successfully submitted by Nagendra Kumar and posted to the=

IETF repository.

=C2=A0

Name:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework

Revision:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 11

Title:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Service Function Chaining (SFC) Operations, Administration and Maint= enance (OAM) Framework

Document date:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 2019-09-19

Group:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 sfc

Pages:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 21

URL:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf= t-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11.txt

Status:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-f= ramework/

Htmlized:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11=

Htmlized:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-fr= amework

Diff:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddr= aft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-11

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Thanks,

Nagendra

=C2=A0

From: = Nagendra Kumar <naikumar@cisco.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:29 AM
To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-sfc-oam-= framework@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework@ietf.org&= gt;, Service Function Chaining IETF list <sfc@ietf.org>, "sfc-chairs@ietf.org" <sfc-chairs@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [sfc] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-1= 0
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent-To: <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>, <cpignata@cisco.com>, Nagendra Kumar <naikumar@cisco.com>= ;, <ramkri123@g= mail.com>, <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:28 AM

=C2=A0

Hi Tal,

=C2=A0

Thank you for the comments. We will address the same= and will submit a new version.

=C2=A0

Regards,

Nagendra

=C2=A0

From: = sfc <sfc-bounces@ietf.org> o= n behalf of Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, September 2, 2019 at 1:14 AM
To: "draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework@ietf.org" <draft-= ietf-sfc-oam-framework@ietf.org>, Service Function Chaining IETF lis= t <sfc@ietf.org>= ;, "sfc-chair= s@ietf.org" <sfc-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: [sfc] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10

=C2=A0

= Hi,

=C2=A0

= I am the assigned shepherd of=C2=A0draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-10.<= u>

I believe the document is almost ready for pub= lication.
I have a few (mostly editorial) comments, as follows.
It would be great if the authors could post a new version that addresses th= ese comments, and then we can proceed with the publication process.<= u>

  • RFC 7498 is an informat= ive reference, but the introduction says that the reader is expected to be = familiar with it. I suggest to change either one or the other.
  • Is there a reason why R= FC 8459 is a normative reference? I suggest to make it informative.<= u>
  • Regarding IOAM (Section= 6.4.3) - the section describes the proof-of-transit draft, but should also= mention
  • draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh= .
  • Section 1 (Introduction= ) lists the content in the rest of the sections, but does not mention Secti= on 6, which suggests candidate tools.
  • "with the same&quo= t; =3D=3D> "this terminology"
  • "The link layer, w= hich is dependent upon the physical technology used." =3D=3D> "= ;The link layer, which is tightly coupled with the physical technology used= ."
  • "depicts a sample = example" =3D=3D> "depicts an example"
  • In Tables 3 and 4, it i= s not clear why some of the columns are separated by "|", and som= e are separated by "+".
  • "Tables 4" = =3D=3D> "Table 4"
  • "for fast failure = detection" - I suggest to remove the word fast, as BFD is not necessar= ily fast.
  • Section 6..4 says that = "This section describes the applicability of some of the available too= lsets in the service layer.", however, section "6.4.4 SFC Tracero= ute" describes a tool that was defined in an expired individual submission. I suggest to either remove section 6.4.4., or to explicitly me= ntion that this draft has expired, and that a new tool can be defined along= the lines of this proposal.
  • Section 3 describes thr= ee OAM components (SF, SFC, Classifier), but then Section 5 and Section 7 (= Table 3, Table 4) do not refer to these three components, but to Underlay, = Overlay, SF and SFC. Please be consistent, so that Section 5-7 refer to the same components that were defined in Section= 3.
  • Moreover, in Section 3,= for each of the first two components (SF and SFC) there is a discussion ab= out availability and performance measurement. However, for the third compon= ent (Classifier), there is no explicit discussion about availability and performance measurement. I suggest to add this miss= ing discussion (even if these functions are not required, it is still impor= tant to mention this).

= Cheers,

= Tal.

--000000000000b2cd3c0594f10b01-- From nobody Wed Oct 30 07:32:43 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sfc@ietf.org Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BC512089A; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: sfc@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.108.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: sfc@ietf.org Message-ID: <157244595734.32481.7074377906455399694@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:32:37 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [sfc] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header-04.txt X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:32:38 -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 WG of the IETF. Title : Service Function Chaining: Subscriber and Performance Policy Identification Variable-Length Network Service Header (NSH) Context Headers Authors : Behcet Sarikaya Dirk von Hugo Mohamed Boucadair Filename : draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header-04.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2019-10-30 Abstract: This document defines Subscriber and Performance Policy Identifiers Network Service Header Variable-Length Context Headers to inform Service Functions about subscriber- and service-related information for the sake of policy enforcement and appropriate service function chaining operations. The structure of each context header is defined, their use and processing instructions by SFC-aware nodes are explained. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header-04 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header-04 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 Thu Oct 31 08:11:27 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619AF120804 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:11:25 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wMYMjqPcC8iQ for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4F25120811 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.11]) by opfedar23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 473pgZ2jQgzBs9t for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:11:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.32]) by opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 473pgZ1y53zCqjj for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:11:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM7C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:11:22 +0100 From: To: "sfc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Integrity Protection for NSH (TR: New Version Notification for draft-rebo-sfc-nsh-integrity) Thread-Index: AdWP/XLuhDRXHHYKTHq/LzVzDVAEhg== Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:11:21 +0000 Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303134B1C2@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [sfc] Integrity Protection for NSH (TR: New Version Notification for draft-rebo-sfc-nsh-integrity) X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Service Chaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:11:26 -0000 SGkgYWxsLCANCg0KVGhpcyBkcmFmdCBpcyBhIGZvbGxvdy11cCB0byB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBp biBJRVRGIzEwNDogDQpodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL21lZXRpbmcvMTA0L21h dGVyaWFscy9zbGlkZXMtMTA0LXNmYy1zZmMtY2hhaXItc2xpZGVzLTAxIChzbGlkZSA3KS4gDQoN CkNvbW1lbnRzIGFyZSB3ZWxjb21lLg0KDQpXZSBob3BlIHRoYXQgdGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgY29uc2lk ZXIgYWRvcHRpbmcgdGhpcyB3b3JrLiANCg0KQ2hlZXJzLA0KVGlydSAmIE1lZA0KDQo+IC0tLS0t TWVzc2FnZSBkJ29yaWdpbmUtLS0tLQ0KPiBEZcKgOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcg W21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQo+IEVudm95w6nCoDogamV1ZGkgMzEg b2N0b2JyZSAyMDE5IDE2OjA1DQo+IMOAwqA6IFJlZGR5IEs7IFRpcnVtYWxlc3dhciBSZWRkeTsg Qk9VQ0FEQUlSIE1vaGFtZWQgVEdJL09MTg0KPiBPYmpldMKgOiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmlj YXRpb24gZm9yIGRyYWZ0LXJlYm8tc2ZjLW5zaC1pbnRlZ3JpdHktMDAudHh0DQo+IA0KPiANCj4g QSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LXJlYm8tc2ZjLW5zaC1pbnRlZ3JpdHktMDAudHh0 DQo+IGhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgTW9oYW1lZCBCb3VjYWRhaXIg YW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUNCj4gSUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KPiANCj4gTmFtZToJCWRyYWZ0 LXJlYm8tc2ZjLW5zaC1pbnRlZ3JpdHkNCj4gUmV2aXNpb246CTAwDQo+IFRpdGxlOgkJSW50ZWdy aXR5IFByb3RlY3Rpb24gZm9yIE5ldHdvcmsgU2VydmljZSBIZWFkZXIgKE5TSCkgYW5kDQo+IEVu Y3J5cHRpb24gb2YgU2Vuc2l0aXZlIE1ldGFkYXRhDQo+IERvY3VtZW50IGRhdGU6CTIwMTktMTAt MzENCj4gR3JvdXA6CQlJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NCj4gUGFnZXM6CQkxNg0KPiBVUkw6 ICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LXJl Ym8tc2ZjLW5zaC0NCj4gaW50ZWdyaXR5LTAwLnR4dA0KPiBTdGF0dXM6ICAgICAgICAgaHR0cHM6 Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtcmViby1zZmMtbnNoLQ0KPiBpbnRlZ3Jp dHkvDQo+IEh0bWxpemVkOiAgICAgICBodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQt cmViby1zZmMtbnNoLWludGVncml0eS0wMA0KPiBIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRh dHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1yZWJvLXNmYy1uc2gtDQo+IGludGVncml0 eQ0KPiANCj4gDQo+IEFic3RyYWN0Og0KPiAgICBUaGlzIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gYWRkcyBpbnRl Z3JpdHkgcHJvdGVjdGlvbiBhbmQgb3B0aW9uYWwgZW5jcnlwdGlvbg0KPiAgICBkaXJlY3RseSB0 byBOZXR3b3JrIFNlcnZpY2UgSGVhZGVycyAoTlNIKSB1c2VkIGZvciBTZXJ2aWNlIEZ1bmN0aW9u DQo+ICAgIENoYWluaW5nIChTRkMpLg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gUGxlYXNlIG5vdGUgdGhh dCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUgb2YNCj4gc3Vi bWlzc2lvbg0KPiB1bnRpbCB0aGUgaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhbmQgZGlmZiBhcmUgYXZhaWxh YmxlIGF0IHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnLg0KPiANCj4gVGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K