Skip to main content

MPLS Transport Encapsulation for the Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)
RFC 8596

Yes

(Deborah Brungard)

No Objection

(Adam Roach)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2019-03-13 for -03)
I also would have expected this document to be in the Standards Track.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2019-03-24)
Thank you for resolving my DISCUSS point!

(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2019-03-14 for -03)
Without having looked before I was thinking this was Standard Track, I'm surprised it is not.

You say:
   1.  Push zero or more labels that are interpreted by the destination
       MPLS node on to the packet, 
and then say:
   The receiving MPLS node then pops the SFF Label (and any labels
   beneath it)
So it looks like that any label which might have been pushed before the SFF label is/are simply ignored at the other end.
I'm not asking for the behaviour to be specified and I understand that strictly speaking the text is not forbidding something to happen based on these labels but still it might be useful to explicitly say that these labels may be processed.

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2019-03-12 for -03)
Not sure about the document's intended status as informational. The doc does not specify a new protocol but it does give normative instructions on the used of protocols. However, I leave this decision to the responsible AD and WG.