Comments in line.
Thank you for the suggestions.

On 3/6/16 3:17 AM, Zhou, Danny wrote:

Hi Jim,

I have a few comments below after reviewing the proposal:

1)Do we need to add a bullet mentioning to-be-supported NSH transport,
such as VxLAN-GPE, GRE and Ethernet. I think VxLAN-GPE and GRE are
mandatory, and Ethernet is optional.

We started out by putting a list of the detailed encaps in the charter. Ed then pointed out that the charter is the scope, not the release plan. The question of which encaps to do first / later / never is a release plan question, so we removed the details. We do need to do a release plan. I expect that which encaps wil be fully supported at first will depend upon which ones people are interested in making work. From a scope perspective, any and all encaps are in scope. Thus, we left the bullet under Forwarding rather vague.

2)How about add “Support NSH Timestamping” to the miscellaneous section.
We have a DPDK based PoC to implement IETF draft
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-browne-ietf-sfc-nsh-timestamp-00 per
customer requirement about breakdown of end-to-end SFC latency to
diagnostic potentiation performance issue. It is based on MD Type 2 so
should be a middle term feature, but like NSH traceroute it will be very
useful in the production environment.

Maybe, following the logic above, we should reword the first bullet under miscellaneous to be NSH OAM support, which would include in scope work on both traceroute and timestamping, as well as other OAM work we may want to support?

3)Can we add “Support TCP proxy for symmetric L4 flows”. Though this
feature depends on VPP to add L4 protocol, it will be very useful for
including those stateful L4-l7 network services to SFC in the long term.

This looks like it would cause scope creep into the various service functions that people want to support using VPP. I am not opposed to fd.io doing such work. I even think it is useful. I am unclear whether that belongs in this project, or some other affiliated project. (The charter talks about the ability to create groups of projects for coordination, which would seem applicable when we get there.)

Yours,
Joel

-Danny

*From:*Jim Guichard (jguichar) [mailto:jguichar@...]
*Sent:* Friday, March 4, 2016 11:44 PM
*To:* tsc@...
*Cc:* Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>; Gasparakis, Joseph
<joseph.gasparakis@...>; Keith Burns (krb) <krb@...>;
afredette@...; therbert@...; J.Hendergart@...; Emran
Chaudhry (emran) <emran@...>; Joel M. Halpern
<jmh@...>; markus.magnusson@...;
hakan.jonsson@...; Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@...>;
ashlee@...; Jan Medved (jmedved) <jmedved@...>;
Jim Guichard (jguichar) <jguichar@...>
*Subject:* Project Proposal for NSH-Based Service Function Chaining

Please accept this project proposal for NSH-based Service Function
Chaining for consideration. We would like to request scheduling for the
first TSC meeting after 2 weeks have passed to allow for public review.



https://wiki.fd.io/view/Project_Proposals/NSH_SFC

Thank you!