Hi SFC co-chairs, I have remove those options (i.e., encoding SFC using a label stack consist of global labels and inserting a protocol field after the label stack for MPLS payload indication) which would cause changes to the MPLS architecture in the latest version (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-sfc-using-mpls-spring-03).
Therefore, we co-authors think it's now becoming suitable for the SFC WG to reconsider this simplified MPLS-SPRING-based SFC solution which doesn't require any change to the MPLS base architecture. Best regards, Xiaohu > -----Original Message----- > From: Xuxiaohu > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 8:49 AM > To: 'Jim Guichard (jguichar)'; Ron Parker > Cc: mpls at ietf.org; <spring at ietf.org>; sfc at ietf.org > Subject: RE: [sfc] New Version Notification for > draft-xu-sfc-using-mpls-spring-02.txt > > Hi Jim, > > Understood. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Guichard (jguichar) [mailto:jguichar at cisco.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:11 PM > > To: Ron Parker; Xuxiaohu > > Cc: mpls at ietf.org; <spring at ietf.org>; sfc at ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [sfc] New Version Notification for > > draft-xu-sfc-using-mpls-spring-02.txt > > > > Hi Xiaohu, > > > > Thomas and I read your latest draft and believe that you will need to > > take it to the MPLS WG as a first step. There are a number of things > > within the document that may require changes to the base MPLS > > architecture and the SFC WG is not the right community to address > > those. Given this we will not be able to consider this document in the > > SFC WG without agreement from the broader MPLS community. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jim & Thomas _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
