Subject: [sfc] SFC Virtual Interim 10/14 Minutes

From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:03:58 +0000

Dear SFC WG:

Please find preliminary meeting minutes for our interim held on 10/14. Any comments/corrections/additions to the chairs please so that the minutes can be updated.

Jim, Martin & Thomas

######################

SFC Virtual Interim 09/15 Minutes

List of attendees:

Dave Dolson
Joel Halpern
Thomas Narten
Victor Vu
Martin Stiemerling
Behüte Sarikaya
Dirk v. Hugo
Gaurav Agrawal
Alia Atlas
Dhruv Dhody
Jim Guichard
Vinods Kumar
Andy Malis
Roberta Maglione
Paul Quinn
Gaurav Agrawal
Lucy Yong
Nobin
Assem Choudary

Meeting Recording link -> https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/lsr.php?RCID=ec4c4ae147bc541cff000a46ddaa5650 (Note: you will need the ARF player to be able to listen)

Agenda:
- Introduction (WG-chairs)
- Agenda bashing, note-well, (WG-chairs)
- SFC Security Discussion (all)
- SFC Metadata Discussion (all)

Introduction:
WG chairs announced the note well, and reviewed the agenda items. Meeting recording will be made available.

SFC Security Discussion:
- discussion on whether the security considerations section of the SFC encapsulation document needs to say more about how IPSec could be used as a transport.
- general agreement that the security considerations section of the latest NSH document considerably improved over previous versions and appears to address all previous objections/concerns from WG members.
- [Joel Halpern] agreed to add a note within the shepherd writeup for the SFC encapsulation document to specify that IPSec usage would go into a different document.
- [Alia Atlas] raised the issue of the general topic of achieving inter-operability and describing transport behaviors.
- [Jim Guichard] emphasized (and others supported), that the SFC encapsulation document describes the service layer, and that is independent of the transports. Therefore any description on how to use specific transports, or other transport behavior requirements, would go into different documents.
- discussion of the limited progress to date by the SFC security design team. SFC security design team actioned to review IPSec applicability and to update the security requirements document (draft-reddy-sfc-nsh-security-req). WG members also would like to see clear purpose of the security requirements document.
- discussion that the security requirements document seems to be focused on the SFC encapsulation rather than SFC in general. The document should provide clear guidance for security requirements around the entire SFC architecture.

Summary:
- agreement that the SFC encapsulation document is independent of any transport considerations and those should be addressed through other WG documents, either within the SFC WG, or other WG’s where the particular transport is standardized.
- WG members encouraged to review existing security related individual contributor SFC documents. Also requested to review draft-reddy-sfc-nsh-security-req in detail and provide comments to the WG mailing list and draft authors.
- WG chairs will work with the security design team to try and generalize the security requirements and broaden to capture requirements around the entire SFC architecture rather than just the encapsulation.

SFC Metadata Discussion:

- [Thomas Narten] provided context (no pun intended) to help frame the discussion.
- general discussion around what is meant by metadata semantics, and the difference between SFC semantics and the use an SF will make of the metadata. The discussion of necessity separated on what does it mean to define semantics for type-1 and semantics for TLVs in type-2.
- discussion about what it would mean to standardize type-1. Suggestion that type-1 documents can, once we have a type-2 registry, refer to the type-2 registry for semantics.
- suggested agreement that we need work on the type-1 allocation drafts. Get the technical agreement on format and correct status for them as decided by the WG.
- discussion around getting presentations from open source projects and these should happen outside of normal face-to-face meeting schedule.

Summary:
- general agreement that we should adopt some of the type-1 allocation drafts, initially on informational RFC track, and work through the allocations. Which specific documents will be adopted will be decided by the WG through the WG draft adoption process.
- general agreement that the WG should review the type-2 TLV registry draft (draft-quinn-sfc-nsh-tlv) with an eye towards WG adoption. There will be a new revision of this document prior to Seoul.
- WG chairs will work on setting up open source project readouts for the SFC WG.