Service Function Chaining
charter-ietf-sfc-02

I'm really excited about the addition of a standards-track security deliverable for SFC.

The ballot question is unclear about whether we're being asked to approve for external review or approval without external review. If it were clearly the former, I'd be balloting "yes" to show additional support for the security deliverable addition. If we are being asked the latter question, I feel that the changes in here are substantial enough to warrant external review, but not enough that I'd stand in the way of moving forward.

I support Ben's comment.

Building off of the discussion in Ben's ballot thread, I would suggest something like this for focus area #2:

2) Security and privacy - Mechanisms and guidance for securing metadata via authentication, integrity protection, confidentiality, and data minimization are not yet defined.  What can be effectively provided, for which scenarios, and how those tools can be provided need to be determined and the tools standardized.

Please add a short description of MD-2, or a reference.

I would like to see milestones before approval of the updated charter.

I agree with Adam on the need for External Review.

Would it be reasonable to add a focus on privacy considerations, either as part of item 2), or as a separate top-level item?

Update: I also mildly prefer external review.

I'm not blocking this charter, but it needs some improvements before being ready.

- 
The focus of the SFC working group moving forward will be on aspects of the
architecture and/or protocol that need to be addressed to enable effective
deployment and usage of this work. In order to maintain focus, the working
group will primarily produce and advance documents on four topics:

No need to use the future tense.
Once posted, present tense is fine

- 
"1) Metadata - Define the common type-length-value encoded metadata types with
Standards Track RFCs"
Typically, the document types are mentioned at the bottom of the charter, in the milestones.

ex: Aug 2015  Submit to IESG Standards Track document specifying the generic service function chaining header encapsulation

Or maybe you want to specifically draw attention to "Standard Track" in the charter text? 


- From the old charter:
5. Manageability: Work on the management and configuration of SFC
   components related to the support of Service Function Chaining will
   certainly be needed, but first needs to be better understood and
   scoped.

Do I understand that this paragraph changed into:
3) OAM and O&M - In order for operators to use these tools in production
networks, they need Operations, Administration, and Maintenance tools, as well
as management mechanisms.  This includes YANG models, OAM frameworks, and
specific OAM mechanisms to address operational needs.
 
-
3) OAM and O&M - In order for operators to use these tools in production
networks, they need Operations, Administration, and Maintenance tools, as well
as management mechanisms.  This includes YANG models, OAM frameworks, and
specific OAM mechanisms to address operational needs.

The OAM work should be based on LIME? If yes, please mention it.
Btw, extend O&M

-
3. YANG models for the SFC Components.

Proposal: 
3. YANG models for the management of SFC Components.

Are you missing OAM in there? I see point 5 and 6 that concern OAM documents, but no YANG models.

Thanks for the charter work item on security.  The earlier description looks good, I'm glad to see integrity included as one of the controls to be explored.  It would be nice to see a more descriptive work item later in the charter than what's currently listed.  What are the ideas for this specific work item?

Thanks!