Subject: [sfc] 101 minutes

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 11:57:40 +0000

Hi,

Here are the minutes for the SFC WG, please review and suggest any
modification that needs to be made.

I guess Tal can take it up from here!

Thanks!
Dhruv

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:42:53 +0300

Hi Dhruv,
thank you for the exceptionally well-taken minutes.
I'd use this opportunity to ask WG chairs for suggestion on what would be
the proper format to conduct the discussion of the interpretation of O-bit
in NSH, the question I've raised in connection to the presentation on iOAM
in SFC NSH by Frank.

Regards,
Greg

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:56:12 -0400

Regarding the OAM bit discussion, there appear to be several different 
issues.  AAny of them that you feel need to be discussed should be 
discussed in clear threads on this email list (without separate copies 
to the chairs, we only need one).

1) You have suggested to me that maybe we do not want an OAM bit at all. 
  If you want to make that case, you may argue for it.  If you feel you 
have support, you then will need an I-D to update 8300.  Presumably, 
this would be based on a new approach to the problems that prompted the 
O bit.  Said approach would need to be described.

2) If you feel that the wording in 8300 on the OAM bit is incorrect, you 
can argue for a change.  Given how much work went into that wording, you 
need to make a strong case for that.

3) You may be arguing that Frank (and others) are misreading the wording 
in 8300.  You can make that argument.  Please be clear as to what you 
think the implications of the misreading are, and why, if that is what 
you are arguing.

I would observe that as chairs we would need to see a strong WG rough 
consensus (still no need for perfect consensus) and a significant 
technical issue before we would move forward on any update to 8300. This 
is due to having JUST finished doing this work.
Note: the strongest and most persuasive argument for a problem would be 
evidence from actual deployment.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/27/18 4:42 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> I'd use this opportunity to ask WG chairs for suggestion on what would 
> be the proper format to conduct the discussion of the interpretation of 
> O-bit in NSH, the question I've raised in connection to the presentation 
> on iOAM in SFC NSH by Frank.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>
> 
>

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:07:04 +0300

Hi Joel,
sincerely appreciate the most detailed and clear explanation of how to
approach the issue. I'll carefully review and study your suggestions and
will follow up with the proposal.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> discussed in clear threads on this email list (without separate copies to
> the chairs, we only need one).
>
> If you want to make that case, you may argue for it.  If you feel you have
> support, you then will need an I-D to update 8300.  Presumably, this would
> be based on a new approach to the problems that prompted the O bit.  Said
> approach would need to be described.
>
> in 8300.  You can make that argument.  Please be clear as to what you think
> the implications of the misreading are, and why, if that is what you are
> arguing.
>
> consensus (still no need for perfect consensus) and a significant technical
> issue before we would move forward on any update to 8300. This is due to
> having JUST finished doing this work.

---

From: Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:16:00 +0300

The minutes have been uploaded:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-sfc-00

Many thanks Dhruv!

If there are any comments, please let us know.

Thanks,
Tal.