Re: [spring] [sfc] [mpls] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

2018-03-13 Thread Francois Clad (fclad)
Hi Adrian,

On 9 Mar 2018, at 10:17, Adrian Farrel 
> 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; 
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 the above, my request to the authors of draft-farrel and MPLS 
WG chairs to please do the right 

Re: [spring] [sfc] [mpls] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

2018-03-09 Thread Loa Andersson

Zafar,

On 2018-03-09 08:02, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:

*Summary*:

Please note that this working group adaption against the IETF process 
and its spirit. Please recall the adaption call.




Interesting, can you point me to the RFC and text that we broke?

/Loa

--


Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64

___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring