Subject: [sfc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-quinn-sfc-arch-04.txt

From: "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:58:21 +0000

Hi folks,

The only change to this version is that we moved to two editors, and listed the other co-authors in a contributors section.

As always, your comments and feedback is appreciated!
Paul

> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-quinn-sfc-arch-04.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Paul Quinn and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-quinn-sfc-arch
> Revision:	04
> Title:		Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture
> Document date:	2014-01-28
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		21
> URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-quinn-sfc-arch-04.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-quinn-sfc-arch/
> Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-sfc-arch-04
> Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-quinn-sfc-arch-04
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document describes an architecture used for the creation of
>   Service Function Chains (SFC).  It includes architectural concepts,
>   principles, and components used in the construction of composite
>   services through deployment of SFCs in a network.  This document does
>   not propose solutions, protocols, or extensions to existing
>   protocols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
>

---

From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:26:55 +0000

Hi Paul,

Reviewing this draft and comparing with the Yang model I have a couple of
comments

1 - 

I noticed that a SFID and SFC-domain might need more wording.

"Service Function Identity (SFID):  A unique identifier that
      represents a service function.  SFIDs are unique for each SF
      within an SFC domain.²

"SFC-domain" is used within the definition above but then the draft
switches to "administrative domain² everywhere else.

Also, the definition of Service Function uses ³administrative domain²
instead of of "SFC-domain".

2 - 

It seems were are missing the definition of a instantiated Service
Function:

A Service Function is something like NAT44, Firewall, etc. It denotes a
class of services that provide the same function.

A SFC is an ordered set of SFs.

A SFP is an instantiation of a SFC. So, what do we call the SFs that are
instantiated and part of the SFP? We can not call them Service Functions
again because we are now talking about an specific service and that would
cause confusion. Do we call them "Service Function Instances² and
therefore a SFP is composed of an ordered set of Service Function
Instances?

Thanks,

-RP

On 1/29/14, 6:58 AM, "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi folks,
>
>The only change to this version is that we moved to two editors, and
>listed the other co-authors in a contributors section.
>
>> URL:            
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-quinn-sfc-arch-04.txt
>_______________________________________________
>sfc mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc