Subject: [sfc] New version of draft-farrel-sfc-convent-03.txt

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:38:38 +0100

Hi WG,

You may recall this draft: it introduces the "None" value for the NSH "Next
Protocol" field.

With this revision we have cleaned up the text a little and reduced section 4
("Backward Compatibility") to remove the text/discussion that was moved into
draft-ietf-sfc-nsh.

At this point we need to ask: does the WG think that the idea of "Next Protocol"
= "None" is something we should pursue?

If there is general support for the idea, is this document the right way to go?

And if yes to both questions: would the chairs like to consider adopting this as
a WG draft so we can move it forward with consensus?

We're not asking to present this work in Singapore (although we would be happy
to do so if asked). The draft is very simple and doesn't need a marketing pitch.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: 27 October 2017 18:23
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-farrel-sfc-convent-03.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> 
> 
>         Title           : Operating the Network Service Header (NSH) with Next
Protocol
> "None"
>         Authors         : Adrian Farrel
>                           John Drake
> 	Filename        : draft-farrel-sfc-convent-03.txt
> 	Pages           : 10
> 	Date            : 2017-10-27
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document describes the use of the Network Service Header (NSH)
>    in a Service Function Chaining (SFC) enabled network with no payload
>    data and carrying only metadata.  This is achieved by defining a new
>    NSH "Next Protocol" type value of "None".
> 
>    This document illustrates some of the functions that may be achieved
>    or enhanced by this mechanism, but it does not provide an exhaustive
>    list of use cases, nor is it intended to be definitive about the
>    functions it describes.  It is expected that other documents will
>    describe specific use cases in more detail and will define the
>    protocol mechanics for each use case.
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-sfc-convent/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-sfc-convent-03
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-farrel-sfc-convent-03
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farrel-sfc-convent-03
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt