Hi Adrian,
On 9 Mar 2018, at 10:17, Adrian Farrel
<adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:
I, too, hope we can move to a technical discussion of the differences between
the proposals
The issue is that, from a technical point of view, there is no difference
between section 6 (MPLS Segment Routing) of your draft-farrel-mpls-sfc and the
solution that was originally documented in draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining, as
Xiaohu pointed out several times.
Considering that draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining was submitted almost one year
before draft-farrel-mpls-sfc, the MPLS Segment Routing approach described in
section 6 of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc belongs in draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining,
which is now draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining.
To be fair to draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining, I believe that
draft-farrel-mpls-sfc should be re-spinned without section 6 before continuing
towards WG adoption.
Thanks,
Francois
and not spend time thrashing around in IETF politics. I'm sure the ADs will
help us understand what is written in the various WG charters, so our best next
step would be to read (you know, like all the words :-) what is in the drafts.
However, since Zafar ascribes to me something that I did not say and that is
not recorded in the minutes, perhaps I can set that straight.
He said...
> From IETF process viewpoint, this call for adaption is like putting the "cart
> ahead of the horse."
> MPLS WG comes last in the process after there is an agreement from Spring and
> SFC groups
> on the need for MPLS data plane changes proposed by the draft. I raised this
> point at the mic
> at SFC WG meeting at IETF100 and Adrian agreed to it. I.e., MPLS WG comes at
> the last stage
> in the process; expert to review this work does not sit in the MPLS WG.
According to the minutes, Zafar said...
| Zafar Ali: before defining the solution, is this the right approach in SFC?
Starting
| in MPLS WG is wrong thing to do.
And I responded...
| Adrian: This was already presented in SFC WG today.
In the SFC WG I said...
| - The draft discusses how MPLS can be used for SFC. It is being discussed in
the
|MPLS working group.
| - We are looking at environments in which deployed MPLS routers can be used
|for creating an SFC, rather than using NSH.
If you want my opinion:
- The SFC WG is chartered to work on NSH only
- The MPLS WG is chartered to work on MPLS
- This draft asks for MPLS code points so can only be in MPLS
- This draft must be reviewed in SFC and SPRING as it progresses and
certainly at WG last call
Adrian
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: 09 March 2018 00:02
To: Francois Clad (fclad); 徐小虎(义先)
Cc: mpls; SPRING WG List; s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org>;
draft-farrel-mpls-sfc; mpls-chairs; mpls
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in
state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
Importance: High
Dear MPLS WG Chairs and the authors of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc,
I would like to draw your attention to the serious issue raised by Xiaohu and
Francois.
Summary:
Please note that this working group adaption against the IETF process and its
spirit. Please recall the adaption call.
Details:
Just to reiterate the issue raised by Xiaohu and Francois. At last IETF we
discussed 3 drafts (draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining-03, draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
and draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining) in SFC, Spring and MPLS
WG. There was the specific conversation on which WG the work belongs, and the
assumed follow-up was for the chairs and ADs to have the discussion on home for
these drafts.
From IETF process viewpoint, this call for adaption is like putting the "cart
ahead of the horse." MPLS WG comes last in the process after there is an
agreement from Spring and SFC groups on the need for MPLS data plane changes
proposed by the draft. I raised this point at the mic at SFC WG meeting at
IETF100 and Adrian agreed to it. I.e., MPLS WG comes at the last stage in the
process; expert to review this work does not sit in the MPLS WG.
The drafts also did not stay dormant after IETF100. There were email
conversations among the authors of the concerned drafts
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/bmH5QH65b2Non2Y7qNEBBI_kSOA).
Authors of draft-xu- and draft-clad- followed the proper IETF process,
discussed and merged the contents. They published
draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining-01 and asked WG for a "presentation
slot" at IETF100. Only to find that draft-farrel-mpls-sfc used a backdoor to
force this "WG adaption call"!
One also has to question the timing of this adaption call when the WGs are
meeting face-to-face in a couple of weeks. Is it no longer IETF spirit to make
use of the face-to-face to do the right thing, especially when we are meeting
in two weeks?
In the light of