Subject: Re: [sfc] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 01:07:17 +0000

I believe this draft is under umbrella of draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-08, suggest to add reference to it.
In addition, It will be great to add usage example of new defined subscriber identifier and Performance Policy Identifier.
Besides these, I think this draft is ready to go.

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: sfc [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Joel M. Halpern
发送时间: 2019年12月11日 21:52
收件人: [email-masked]
主题: [sfc] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header

Starting WG Last call.  See comment below for description.
Thank you,
Joel

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:27:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-From: [email-masked]
Resent-To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:27:51 -0800
From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]

The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header has been changed to "In
WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel Halpern:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header/

Comment:
This starts the working group last call for this document.  It has been
discussed on the email list.  We need to see responses.  If you see issues
with publishing this document as an RFC, please speak up now.  And please be
clear about what your concerns are.   At the same time, if you think that
publishing this as an RFC is a good thing for the working group, please 
speak
up.

As a note for those who may be concerned about the relationship to the TLV
draft, the chairs have noticed that problem, and we believe we have gotten
that document unstuck.

Given the propensity for people to disappear at this time of year, I am
giving the document a 4 week last call.

Thank you for your time and attention,
Joel (& Jim)

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 20:26:42 -0500

I am not confident that I follow your reasoning.   So let me restate 
slightly, and then add some observations and questions.

You appear to be observing that the information as to what serviceID 
could come from the control plane framework.  Is that what you are 
getting at?

That draft has not been updated in more than 3 years, expired for 2.5 
years.  It does not appear that the working group has any interest in 
the document.  When it was last considered, there was a lot of 
controversey about the draft, and if I recall correctly no agreement 
that it was structured the right way.

Our approach to metadata, and for that matter to SPFID selection, and to 
the forwarding entries in SFF, has been that the information can come 
from a number of places and we do not tie the definitions to the 
mechanisms used to provide them.

As such, I do not understand what form of reference would be 
appropriate, even if the cited document were an active WG document.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 01:09:47 +0800

Joel,

A naive question inline.

> That draft has not been updated in more than 3 years, expired for 2.5 

Is what you say that draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane has not been changed
for 3 years and expired for 2.5?

Sometimes umbrella documents is useful, in this case we seems to be
doing good without one.

/Loa
>> I believe this draft is under umbrella of 
>> draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-08, suggest to add reference to it.
>> In addition, It will be great to add usage example of new defined 
>> subscriber identifier and Performance Policy Identifier.

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:14:57 -0500

I agree Loa, we do not seem to need an umbrella document.
If the working group decides to engage in control plane work, then we 
might want to re-examine whether or not a framework document would be 
helpful.

Yours,
Joel

On 12/20/2019 12:09 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Our approach to metadata, and for that matter to SPFID selection, and 
>> to the forwarding entries in SFF, has been that the information can 
>> come from a number of places and we do not tie the definitions to the