Subject: Re: [sfc] Progression of SFC use case documents

From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:09:33 +0000

Hi Hongyu,

The sentence you quote is meant to say “work directly with the applicable SDOs on incorporating relevant content”.. In other words, if an applicable SDO has input for a given use case then we should work with them to incorporate said content. I would expect the authors and subject matter experts from within our WG to identify such applicability.

From: "Hongyu Li (Julio)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Friday, April 25, 2014 at 9:55 PM
To: "Surendra Kumar (smkumar)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Lucy yong <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Jim Guichard <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: RE: [sfc] Progression of SFC use case documents

and that can work directly with the applicable SDOs on incorporating relevant content.
There was a question on the mailing list asking what are the SDOs draft-kumar-sfc-dc-use-case is corresponding to, but no answer was posted so far.
SK> Do you have a suggestion for an SDO for enterprise DC ?

[HL] You’ve just asked a brilliant question to the chairs, who is expecting draft-kumar-sfc-dc-use-case can serve the purpose of “work directly with the applicable SDOs on incorporating relevant content”.

From: Surendra Kumar (smkumar) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 8:41 AM
To: Hongyu Li (Julio); Lucy yong; Jim Guichard (jguichar); [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Progression of SFC use case documents

Inline.

From: "Hongyu Li (Julio)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 1:58 AM
To: Lucy yong <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Progression of SFC use case documents

Hi Chairs,

I support Lucy’s comment. draft-kumar-sfc-dc-use-case has a fancy name, but not so fancy use cases. Snipped from Chairs’ email:
SK> Our goal is to capture the use cases in enterprise DCs that highlight the challenges in deploying legacy service chaining and bring out the requirements for SFC architecture with examples.
1.      Adopt a small number of WG documents (initially 2) that are applicable to specific environments and that can be worked on independently by members of the WG that have the necessary expertise for that environment,
Both mobile and fixed network may put their Service Functions in a virtual environment, which is very possibly  a datacenter. So, draft-kumar-sfc-dc-use-case has a great overlap with other use case drafts including, even though you want to have “specific environments” and clean cuts between them.
SK> In fact I would go a step further and say, the concepts underlying all of them are the same - the reason all use cases are in this WG. The requirements on the other hand are indeed different, specifically when contrasted with Mobile SP.
Although NFV is shining some light on SFC through Mobility use cases in recent days, enterprise use cases have existed for a very long time. There are a lot more enterprise deployments, small & large, than mobile SP. We would be better served by not ignoring the vast majority of the SFC deployments, in major enterprise DCs, pretty much everywhere.

and that can work directly with the applicable SDOs on incorporating relevant content.
There was a question on the mailing list asking what are the SDOs draft-kumar-sfc-dc-use-case is corresponding to, but no answer was posted so far.
SK> Do you have a suggestion for an SDO for enterprise DC ?

Surendra.

So, it seems draft-kumar-sfc-dc-use-case doesn’t serve your purpose at all.

BR,
Hongyu

From: sfc [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lucy yong
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 7:06 AM
To: Jim Guichard (jguichar); [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Progression of SFC use case documents

Dear Chairs,

People including myself did not voice a single document to capture all possible use cases because there is no need to do that. We suggested capturing all necessary use cases that help driving the architecture and requirement development.

Giving the situation, I support adopting draft-haeffner-sfc-use-case-moblity as WG draft. This is because a large portion of SFC use cases are in Mobile applications; and the draft describes many unique ways to use SFC. It is good to have one draft to cover Mobile area.

IMO: draft-kumar-sfc-dc-use-cases does not depict unique SFC cases from a general SFC case except the SFC applications location is in data centers. Thus these cases can be easily merged into the general use case draft. So we have another use case draft for the rest.

Regards,
Lucy

Dear WG:

There has been much discussion both on the list and during our face-to-face meetings about how best to progress use case documents within the WG. There are clearly arguments for both of the following approaches:

  1.  A single document that captures all of the possible use cases.
  2.  A small number of targeted documents that are focused on a particular subset of the overall problem space (such as broadband, mobility, and data center).
But, we can’t choose both. In considering these approaches, the chairs recognize that there are benefits to having a single document, but do not believe having just one document is workable in this case. Nor is there consensus for having a single document.  Therefore, we will pursue the following approach going forward:

  1.  Adopt a small number of WG documents (initially 2) that are applicable to specific environments and that can be worked on independently by members of the WG that have the necessary expertise for that environment, and that can work directly with the applicable SDOs on incorporating relevant content.
  2.  Continue to leave open the possibility of adopting a high-level use case document that serves as a “catch all” for use cases that do not merit their own document or are not captured in the content of more focused use case documents. However, before taking on such a document, the WG will need to understand in more detail what the content would be and that the content justifies having such a document. Such a document should not duplicate material that is covered in other documents.
To facilitate the above direction the chairs will take the following steps:

  1.  Call for the adoption of draft-haeffner-sfc-use-case-moblity and draft-kumar-sfc-dc-use-cases as WG documents.
  2.  Encourage the authors to continue to work on refinement of draft-liu-sfc-use-cases. The authors of that document should update their draft to remove any duplication of material covered in other documents as well as identify content that is not covered elsewhere.
We hope that this approach will allow the WG to move forward and also provide enough flexibility to allow use cases to evolve independently, with direct interaction with the appropriate SDOs.

Thanks,

Jim & Thomas