Subject: [sfc] Typo in section 5.5 of merged arch document

From: Anil Gunturu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 15:12:33 +0000

In section 5.5 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-merged-sfc-architecture/?include_text=1, SPF should be SFP to be constant with the terminology.

"In the simplest case, where there is only a single function in the
 SPF (the next hop is either the destination address of the flow or
 the appropriate next hop to that destination), one could argue that
 there may be no need for SFC.

 In the cases where the classifier is separate from the single
 function or a function at the terminal address may need sub-prefix or
 per-subscriber metadata, a single SPF exists (the metadata changes
 but the SPF does not), regardless of the number of potential terminal
 addresses for the flow.  This is the case of the simple load
 balancer.  See Figure 4."

-Anil

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 23:55:12 +0000

Good catch -- thanks Anil.

Carlos.

On Sep 7, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Anil Gunturu <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

 balancer.  See Figure 4.”

-Anil

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