Subject: Re: [sfc] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 16:52:53 +0800 (CST)

John,
I appreciate your comments.
See comments resolution inline begin with Yuehua>>

Best Regards,
Yuehua Wei
------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：JohnScudderviaDatatracker
收件人：The IESG;
抄送人：[email-masked];[email-masked];[email-masked];[email-masked];[email-masked];
日 期 ：2021年12月02日 03:29
主 题 ：John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I notice that in his RTGDIR review of version 08 [*], Stig Venaas suggested
some improvements to the security considerations section. This was subsequently
discussed and Yuehua Wei proposed some new text [**] for version 09. That text
isn’t present, and I don’t see any further resolution on the mailing list
either. I’d appreciate it if the topic were closed by either adding the
proposed text, or some other text to resolve Stig’s concern, or explanation of
why no change was made.
[*]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-08-rtgdir-lc-venaas-2021-09-29/
[**] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/Q2Snf_ZLTkJ1augbaWpmNYlwFBU/

Yuehua>> Thank you ,you are right , I  will merge the proposed text to ver10 for further review and discussion.

2. In §8.2, the two first references, [GROUPBASEDPOLICY] and [GROUPPOLICY] are
deficient. At a minimum, a reference should provide enough information to allow
a reader to straightforwardly determine how to retrieve it. This is true even
if it’s not an openly-available online source. These two references have less
than the bare bones, I don’t know how to find them or refer to them.

Yuehua>> Thank you, you are right, The weblinks in the current XML file don't show well in the txt or html file , will fix them to ver10.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I support all of Ben’s discuss points. I also want to reiterate his comment
about the desirability of having useful captions on the figures.

Yuehua>>will state the resolutions to the thread of Ben's comments

2. In §4.2, you write,
This context header carries both the format
and value of the Tenant identifier.
However, I don’t see anywhere that the header “carries… the format”. Indeed,
you write that the Tenant ID is an opaque value. As far as I can tell, there’s
no way to infer anything about its structure without a priori knowledge.
If that is correct, you can simplify the sentence to “This context header
carries the Tenant Identifier.” If it’s not correct, please explain?

Yuehua>> Accepted

3. Nit, in §4.7 the words “quite efficiently” don’t seem to serve any useful
purpose; the document would be better off without them IMO.

Yuehua>> Accepted. will delete “quite efficiently”

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:16:38 +0800 (CST)

Dear Martin and John，
I appreciate your comments.
For the security consideration, I will update to ver10 very soon for further review based on https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/Q2Snf_ZLTkJ1augbaWpmNYlwFBU/
For the reference GROUPBASEDPOLICY references from ODL and Openstack, the weblinks in the current XML file don't show well in the txt or html file , will fix them to ver10.
I have the same reference weblink of Openstack as Martin provided.
About the reference weblink of ODL, I have "https://docs.opendaylight.org/en/stable-fluorine/user-guide/group-based-policy-user-guide.html?highlight=group%20policy#" from user-guide.
It seems that the weblink is  more stable to me.

Best Regards,
Yuehua Wei
ZTE Corporation
------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：MartinVigoureux
收件人：John Scudder;The IESG;
抄送人：[email-masked];[email-masked];[email-masked];[email-masked];
日 期 ：2021年12月02日 19:09
主 题 ：Re: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi John,
please see inline.
-m
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv/
I think the authors had the intent of including the proposed text but
indeed apparently failed to do so before it went in IESG Review and I
missed catching this at that time, so thank you.
I'll ping Stig to see if this matches his expectations.
> than the bare bones, I don’t know how to find them or refer to them.
I didn't feel strongly about these as they are Informational.
Yet, I've found:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GroupBasedPolicy
and https://wiki.opendaylight.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=336503
for ODL (although it's qualified as an archived project).
Maybe the authors have better references.
> no way to infer anything about its structure without a priori knowledge..
>