Subject: [mpls] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Datatracker on behalf of Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 19:18:30 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-05: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sfc/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparing the requirements in RFC 8300 Section 8.1 under "Single Domain
Boundary" and the text in Section 15 of this document, it seems that the
mechanism specified in this document is not subject to the same normative
requirements as specified for the administrative boundaries of a network where
MPLS is used as the transport encapsulation for NSH. What is the reasoning for
that? I would have expected to see similar normative requirements here as in
RFC 8300 Section 8.1.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

= Section 4.5 =

OLD
The application of SR to SFC was considered in early versions of the
   SR architecture [RFC8402] and the MPLS-SR specification
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls], but has since been moved out
   of those documents.

NEW
The application of SR to SFC was considered in early versions of the
   SR architecture [RFC8402] and the MPLS-SR specification
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls], but was not ultimately adopted.

(I think this is about the ideas, not the organization of documents.)