Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-sfc-architecture
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-05-25
Requested 2015-05-14
Authors Joel Halpern, Carlos Pignataro
Draft last updated 2015-05-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Tom Taylor (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Simon Josefsson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tom Taylor 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-sfc-architecture-08-genart-lc-taylor-2015-05-22
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2015-05-22


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-08
Reviewer: Tom Taylor
Review Date:        2015-05-17
IETF LC End Date:   2015-05-25
IESG Telechat date: 2015-05-28


There is one IPR declaration, which was repeated for two predecessor 

documents but not for the current draft. The draft is basically ready to 

go with a very minor issue and a few nits.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

The Security Considerations section rightly mentions the need to avoid 

leaking SFC information. However, it does this under the heading of 

"Classification". Could I suggest that the first two sentences of the 

"Classification" bullet be separated out under the title "Boundaries"?

Nits/editorial comments:

Sec. 1.2, third bullet from the bottom: spell out SFF on first use, and 

give a forward reference to the next section, i.e.,

   "...interconnect the Service Function Forwarders (SFFs, see next
    section) ..."

Sec. 1.2, next bullet: according to the RFC Editor Style Guide 

abbreviations list, FIB and RIB are not well-known abbreviations, hence 

need to be spelled out.

Sec. 1.3, Service Function Forwarder, last line: spell out SFP? I know 

the definition is just a few lines down, so this is a maybe.

Alternative suggestion: introduce a Section 1.3.1 at the beginning of 

the section, as follows:

"1.3.1 Key Abbreviations

   The terms listed here are defined in Section 1.3.2.

   SF	Service Function
   SFC	Service Function Chain or Service Function Chaining
   SFF	Service Function Forwarder
   SFP	Service Function Path
   RSP	Rendered Service Path"

Sec. 2.1, second para., third line from bottom: s/the the/the/