Subject: [sfc] Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-guichard-sfc-nsh-dc-allocation/

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:17:32 -0400

The authors of Network Service Header (NSH) MD Type 1: Context Header 
Allocation (Data Center):

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-guichard-sfc-nsh-dc-allocation/

Have requested working group adoption of this draft.  The itnended 
status, as ntoed in the draft is Informational.

Please speak up if you think this is, or is not, a good thing for the 
working group to adopt.  Adoption in this case means it is a good basis 
for a working group produced informational RFC.

While all feedback his helpful, comments pro or con with explanations 
are much more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you".

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:19:58 -0400

And when I went to update the tool, I realized I had left out one 
important item.
The expectation is that we will complete this call on October 6.

Thank you,
Joel

On 9/22/17 11:17 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:22:16 -0400

Joel,

I support adoption, it’s important to have a document that describes a
recommended use for the metadata field in the NSH.

My only comment is with the terminology "recommended default allocation”.
The allocation can be the default, which means it’s the usual allocation
but can be changed if necessary. or it can be recommended, which basically
means the same, but “recommended default” seems to be redundant.  This can
be addressed following adoption.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Have requested working group adoption of this draft.  The itnended status,
> as ntoed in the draft is Informational.
>
> working group to adopt.  Adoption in this case means it is a good basis for
> a working group produced informational RFC.
>
> While all feedback his helpful, comments pro or con with explanations are
> much more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you".
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>