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 the above, my request to the authors of draft-farrel and MPLS WG chairs to please do the right thing and recall this WG adaptation call. Thanks Regards ... Zafar From: mpls <mpls-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Francois Clad (fclad)" <fc...@cisco.com<mailto:fc...@cisco.com>> Date: Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:21 AM To: "徐小虎(义先)" <xiaohu....@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:xiaohu....@alibaba-inc.com>> Cc: draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <draft-farrel-mpls-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-farrel-mpls-...@ietf.org>>, "m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>" <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, mpls-chairs <mpls-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-cha...@ietf.org>>, mpls <mpls-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" Hi Xiaohu, all, I agree with the point raised by Xiaohu. The draft-farrel-mpls-sfc is copying ideas described in draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining. Please note that the work in draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining started one year before draft-farrel-mpls-sfc. At IETF100, three drafts in this area were discussed / presented: - draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining - draft-farrel-mpls-sfc - draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining There was discussion over the mic on the right home for these drafts among SFC, SPRING and MPLS, but no consensus was reached. As Xiaohu mentioned, draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining and draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining have later merged as draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining. We have also requested a slot for presenting this draft during the upcoming IETF meeting. In this context, we believe that asking for WG adoption for one of these drafts is premature. Thanks, Francois On 7 Mar 2018, at 01:13, 徐小虎(义先) <xiaohu....@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:xiaohu....@alibaba-inc.com>> wrote: Hi all, As I had pointed out at the last IETF meeting, section 6 of this draft has an serious overlap with https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining-03 that has now been updated by https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining-01 with a merge with draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining. Hence, I'm very interesting to know the intention of such rewritting of a given mechanism that has been described in another draft. Is there any special nutrition? Best regards, Xiaohu ------------------------------------------------------------------ 发件人：IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org>> 发送时间：2018年3月6日(星期二) 22:09 收件人：draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <draft-farrel-mpls-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-farrel-mpls-...@ietf.org>>; mpls <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>; mpls-chairs <mpls-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-cha...@ietf.org>> 主 题：[mpls] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Loa Andersson) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-mpls-sfc/ _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ sfc mailing list s...@ietf.org<mailto:s...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
