Last Call Review of draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05
review-farrel-sfc-convent-05-opsdir-lc-wang-2018-01-29-00
Request | Review of | draft-farrel-sfc-convent |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-01-31 | |
Requested | 2018-01-17 | |
Authors | Adrian Farrel , John Drake | |
I-D last updated | 2018-01-29 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Zitao Wang (diff) Tsvart Telechat review of -05 by Martin Stiemerling (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Zitao Wang |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-farrel-sfc-convent by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 06) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2018-01-29 |
review-farrel-sfc-convent-05-opsdir-lc-wang-2018-01-29-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate’s ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document reviewed:draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05 Summary: This document describes the use of the Network Service Header (NSH) in a Service Function Chaining (SFC) enabled network with no payload data and carrying only metadata. This is achieved by defining a new NSH "Next Protocol" type value of "None". This document illustrates some of the functions that may be achieved or enhanced by this mechanism, but it does not provide an exhaustive list of use cases, nor is it intended to be definitive about the functions it describes. It is expected that other documents will describe specific use cases in more detail and will define the protocol mechanics for each use case. Major issue: None Minor issue: Suggest adding a termnology section to introduce the abbreviations which be used in this document, such as SFP, NSH, SF, SFI, etc.