<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc private=""?>
<?rfc topblock="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="no"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
     submissionType="independent" ipr="trust200902" category="info"
     number="8677" obsoletes="" updates=""
     docName="draft-trossen-sfc-name-based-sff-07" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 2.34.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Name-Based SFF">Name-Based Service Function Forwarder
    (nSFF) Component within a Service&nbsp;Function&nbsp;Chaining&nbsp;(SFC) Framework</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8677"/>
    <author fullname="Dirk Trossen" initials="D." surname="Trossen">
      <organization> InterDigital Europe, Ltd</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>64 Great Eastern Street, 1st Floor</street>
          <city>London</city>
          <code>EC2A 3QR</code>
          <country>United Kingdom</country>
        </postal>
        <email>Dirk.Trossen@InterDigital.com</email>
        <uri> </uri>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="D." surname="Purkayastha" fullname="Debashish Purkayastha">
      <organization>InterDigital Communications, LLC</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1001 E Hector St</street>
          <city>Conshohocken</city>
          <code/>
          <country>United States of America</country>
          <region/>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>Debashish.Purkayastha@InterDigital.com</email>
        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="A." surname="Rahman" fullname="Akbar Rahman">
      <organization>InterDigital Communications, LLC</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1000 Sherbrooke Street West</street>
          <city>Montreal</city>
          <code/>
          <country>Canada</country>
          <region/>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com</email>
        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2019" month="November"/>
    <area/>
    <workgroup/>
    <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in                  
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
    <keyword>example</keyword>
    <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, should "locations" be made uppercase
in "Execution locations" or should both words be made lowercased?

Original:
   Adoption of cloud and fog technology allows operators to deploy a
   single "Service Function" to multiple "Execution locations".
-->
    <abstract>
      <t>
       Adoption of cloud and fog technology allows operators to deploy a
       single "Service Function" (SF) to multiple "Execution locations".  The
       decision to steer traffic to a specific location may change frequently
       based on load, proximity, etc. Under the current Service
       Function Chaining (SFC) framework, steering
       traffic dynamically to the different execution endpoints requires a
       specific "rechaining", i.e., a change in the service function path
       reflecting the different IP endpoints to be used for the new execution
       points.  This procedure may be complex and take time. In order to
       simplify rechaining and reduce the time to complete the procedure, we
       discuss separating the logical Service Function Path (SFP) from the specific
       execution endpoints. This can be done by identifying the Service
       Functions using a name rather than a routable IP endpoint (or Layer 2
       address). This document describes the necessary extensions, additional
       functions, and protocol details in SFF (Service Function Forwarder) to
       handle name-based relationships.
      </t>
      <t>
	   This document presents InterDigital's approach to name-based SFC.  It does not represent IETF consensus
	   and is presented here so that the SFC community may benefit from considering this mechanism and the possibility of its use in
	   the edge data centers.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
        The requirements on today's networks are very diverse, enabling
        multiple use cases such as the Internet of Things (IoT), Content
        Distribution, Gaming, and Network functions such as Cloud Radio Access
        Network (RAN) and 5G control planes based on a Service-Based
        Architecture (SBA). These services are deployed, provisioned, and managed
        using Cloud-based techniques as seen in the IT world. Virtualization
        of compute and storage resources is at the heart of providing (often
        web) services to end users with the ability to quickly provision
        virtualized service endpoints through, e.g., container-based
        techniques. This creates the ability to dynamically compose new
        services from existing services. It also allows an operator to move a
        service instance in response to user mobility or to change resource
	availability. When moving from a purely "distant cloud" model to one
        of localized micro data centers with regional, metro, or even street
        level, often called "edge" data centers, such virtualized service
        instances can be instantiated in topologically different locations
        with the overall "distant" data center now being transformed into a
        network of distributed ones.

<!--[rfced] Please review this sentence as there is at least a
subject/verb error (i.e., The reaction....are...").

Original:
 The
   reaction of content providers, like Facebook, Google, NetFlix and
   others, are not just relying on deploying content server at the
   ingress of the customer network.
-->
	The reaction of content providers, like
        Facebook, Google, NetFlix, and others, are not just relying on
        deploying content servers at the ingress of the customer
        network. Instead, the trend is towards deploying multiple POPs within
        the customer network, those POPs being connected through proprietary
        mechanisms <xref target="Schlinker2017" format="default"/> to push content.
      </t>
      <t>
        The Service Function Chaining (SFC) framework <xref target="RFC7665" format="default"/> allows network operators as well as service providers to compose
        new services by chaining individual "Service Functions". Such
        chains are expressed through explicit relationships of functional
        components (the SFs) realized through their direct
        Layer 2 (e.g., Media Access Control (MAC) address) or Layer 3 (e.g., IP address) relationship
        as defined through next-hop information that is being defined by the
        network operator. See <xref target="Bkgnd" format="default"/> for more background on SFC.
      </t>
      <t>
         In a dynamic service environment of distributed data centers such as the
         one outlined above, with the ability to create and recreate service
         endpoints frequently, the SFC framework requires reconfiguring the
         existing chain through information based on the new relationships,
         causing overhead in a number of components, specifically the
         orchestrator that initiates the initial service function chain and
         any possible reconfiguration.
      </t>
      <t>
<!--[rfced] This sentence is difficult to parse because of the use of
    "such as" and "for instance".  Pleaes rephrase.

Original:
   This document describes how such changes can be handled without
   involving the initiation of new and reconfigured SFCs by lifting the
   chaining relationship from Layer 2 and 3 information to that of
   service function 'names', such as names for instance being expressed
   as URIs.


-->
	
        This document describes how such changes can be handled without
        involving the initiation of new and reconfigured SFCs by lifting the
        chaining relationship from Layer 2 and 3 information to that of
        service function "names" such as names, for instance, being expressed
        as URIs. In order to transparently support such named relationships,
        we propose to embed the necessary functionality directly into the
        Service Function Forwarder (SFF) as described in <xref target="RFC7665" format="default"/>. With that, the SFF described in this document
        allows for keeping an existing SFC intact, as described by its service
        function path (SFP), while enabling the selection of appropriate
        service function endpoint(s) during the traversal of packets through
        the SFC. This document is an Independent Submission to the RFC
        Editor. It is not an output of the IETF SFC WG.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="terminology" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <t>
    The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
    NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
    described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default"/> 
    when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Use_Case" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Example Use Case: 5G Control-Plane Services</name>
      <t>
	    We exemplify the need for chaining service functions at the level
	    of a service name through a use case stemming from the current
	    3GPP Release 16 work on Service Based Architecture (SBA) <xref target="SDO-3GPP-SBA" format="default"/>, <xref target="SDO-3GPP-SBA-ENHANCEMENT" format="default"/>. In
	    this work, mobile network control planes are proposed to be
	    realized by replacing the traditional network function interfaces
	    with a fully service-based one. HTTP was chosen as the
	    application-layer protocol for exchanging suitable service
	    requests <xref target="SDO-3GPP-SBA" format="default"/>. With this in mind, the
	    exchange between, for example, the 3GPP-defined (Rel. 15) Session
	    Management Function (SMF) and the Access and Mobility Management
	    Function (AMF) in a 5G control plane is being described as a set
	    of web-service-like requests that are, in turn, embedded into HTTP
	    requests. Hence, interactions in a 5G control plane can be
	    modeled based on service function chains where the relationship
	    is between the specific (IP-based) service function endpoints that
	    implement the necessary service endpoints in the SMF and AMF. The
	    service functions are exposed through URIs with work ongoing to
	    define the used naming conventions for such URIs.
      </t>
      <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble understanding the following sentence. It
may be more clear if split into two sentences.

Original:
   Hence, operators of such future mobile networks desire to virtualize
   service function endpoints and direct (control-plane) traffic to the
   most appropriate current service instance in the most appropriate
   (local) data centre, such data centre envisioned as being interconnected
   through a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN).

Perhaps:
   Hence, operators of such future mobile networks desire to virtualize
   service function endpoints and direct (control-plane) traffic to the
   most appropriate current service instance in the most appropriate
   (local) data center. Such a data center is envisioned as being interconnected
   through a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN).
 
Or perhaps:
   Hence, operators of such future mobile networks desire to virtualize
   service function endpoints and direct (control-plane) traffic to the
   most appropriate current service instance in the most appropriate
   (local) data center. This is envisioned as being a data center interconnected
   through a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN).
-->
      <t>
	     This move from a network function model (in pre-Release 15 systems of
	     3GPP) to a service-based model is motivated through the
	     proliferation of data-center operations for mobile network
	     control-plane services. In other words, typical IT-based methods
	     to service provisioning, particularly that of virtualization of
	     entire compute resources, are envisioned to being used in future
	     operations of mobile networks. Hence, operators of such future
	     mobile networks desire to virtualize service function endpoints
	     and direct (control-plane) traffic to the most appropriate
	     current service instance in the most appropriate (local) data
	     center, such data center envisioned as being interconnected
	     through a software-defined wide area network
	     (SD-WAN). "Appropriate" here can be defined by topological or
	     geographical proximity of the service initiator to the service
	     function endpoint. Alternatively, network or service instance
	     compute load can be used to direct a request to a more
	     appropriate (in this case less loaded) instance to reduce
	     possible latency of the overall request. Such data-center-centric
	     operation is extended with the trend towards regionalization of
	     load through a "regional office" approach, where
	     micro data centers provide virtualizable resources that can be used in the
	     service execution, creating a larger degree of freedom when
	     choosing the "most appropriate" service endpoint for a particular
	     incoming service request.
      </t>
      <t>
	     While the move to a service-based model aligns well with the
	     framework of SFC, choosing the most appropriate service instance
	     at runtime requires so-called "rechaining" of the SFC since the
	     relationships in said SFC are defined through Layer 2 or 3
	     identifiers, which, in turn, are likely to be different if the
	     chosen service instances reside in different parts of the network
	     (e.g., in a regional data center).
      </t>
      <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have updated the following sentence as follows for
clarity. Please let us know if this has changed the intended meaning. 


Original:
   It is a Service layer concept and can possibly work over any Virtual
   network layer and an Underlay network, possibly IP or any Layer 2
   technology.
 
Updated:
   It is a service-layer concept and can possibly work over any Virtual
   network layer, Underlay network, or possibly over an IP or any Layer
   2 technology.
-->
      <t>
         Hence, when a traffic flow is forwarded over a service chain
         expressed as an SFC-compliant Service Function Path (SFP), packets in
         the traffic flow are processed by the various service function
         instances, with each service function instance applying a service
         function prior to forwarding the packets to the next network node. It
         is a service-layer concept and can possibly work over any Virtual
         network layer, Underlay network, or possibly over an IP or any Layer 2
         technology. At the service layer, Service Functions are identified
         using a path identifier and an index. Eventually, this index is
         translated to an IP address (or MAC address) of the host where the
         service function is running. Because of this, any change-of-service
         function instance is likely to require a change of the path
         information since either the IP address (in the case of changing the
         execution from one data center to another) or MAC address will change
         due to the newly selected service function instance.
      </t>
      <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, is "internet" used to refer to the
actual World Wide Web, or an unnconnected system of servers? 

Original:
   Returning to our 5G control-plane example, a user's connection
   request to access an application server in the internet may start
   with signaling in the Control Plane to setup user plane bearers.
-->
      <!-- [rfced] How can we update the following sentnece for clarity?  
  
Original:
   Part of the control plane, the Common Control Network Function (CCNF),
   the Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF) is in charge of selecting
   core Network Slice instances.  

Perhaps:
   Part of the control plane, the Common Control Network Function (CCNF) and
   Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF), is in charge of selecting
   Core Network Slice instances.  
-->
      <t> Returning to our 5G control-plane example, a user's connection request to
 access an application server in the internet may start with signaling in the
 Control Plane to set up user-plane bearers. The connection request may flow
 through service functions over a service chain in the control plane, as
 deployed by a network operator. Typical SFs in a 5G control plane may include
 "RAN termination / processing", "Slice Selection Function", "AMF", and
 "SMF". A "Network Slice" is a complete logical network including Radio Access
 Network (RAN) and Core Network (CN). Distinct RAN and CN Slices may exist. A
 device may access multiple Network Slices simultaneously through a single
 RAN. The device may provide Network Slice Selection Assistance Information
 (NSSAI) parameters to the network to help it select a RAN and a Core Network
 part of a slice instance. Part of the control plane, the Common Control
 Network Function (CCNF), the Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF) is in
 charge of selecting core Network Slice instances. The Classifier, as
 described in SFC architecture, may reside in the user terminal or at the
 Evolved Node B (eNB).  These service functions can be configured to be part
 of a Service Function Chain. We can also say that some of the configurations
 of the Service Function Path may change at the execution time. For example,
 the SMF may be relocated as the user moves and a new SMF may be included in
 the Service Function Path based on user location. <xref target="fig-sfc-1" format="default"/> shows the example Service Function Chain
 described here.
      </t>
      <figure anchor="fig-sfc-1">
        <name>Mapping SFC onto Service Function Execution Points along a Service Function Path</name>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ 
+------+   +---------+  +-----+   +-----+  
| User |   | Slice   |  |     |   |     |
| App  |-->| Control |->| AMF |-->| SMF |-->
| Fn   |   | Function|  |     |   |     |  
+------+   +---------+  +-----+   +-----+]]></artwork>
      </figure>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Bkgnd" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Background</name>
      <t>
	   <xref target="RFC7665" format="default"/> describes an architecture for the
	   specification, creation, and ongoing maintenance of Service Function
	   Chains (SFCs).  It includes architectural concepts, principles, and
	   components used in the construction of composite services through
	   deployment of SFCs. In the following, we outline the parts of this
	   SFC architecture relevant for our proposed extension, followed by
	   the challenges with this current framework in the light of our
	   example use case.
      </t>
      <section anchor="Arch" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Relevant Part of SFC Architecture</name>
        <t>

		  The SFC Architecture, as defined in <xref target="RFC7665" format="default"/>,
		  describes architectural components such as Service Function
		  (SF), Classifier, and Service Function Forwarder (SFF). It
		  describes the Service Function Path (SFP) as the logical
		  path of an SFC. Forwarding traffic along such an SFP is the
		  responsibility of the SFF. For this, the SFFs in a network
		  maintain the requisite SFP forwarding information.  Such SFP
		  forwarding information is associated with a service path
		  identifier (SPI) that is used to uniquely identify an SFP.
		  The service forwarding state is represented by the Service
		  Index (SI) and enables an SFF to identify which SFs of a
		  given SFP should be applied, and in what order. The SFF also
		  has information that allows it to forward packets to the
		  next SFF after applying local service functions.
        </t>
        <t>
		 The operational steps to forward traffic are then as follows:
		 Traffic arrives at an SFF from the network.  The SFF
		 determines the appropriate SF the traffic should be forwarded
		 to via information contained in the SFC encapsulation.  After
		 SF processing, the traffic is returned to the SFF and, if
		 needed, is forwarded to another SF associated with that SFF.
		 If there is another non-local hop (i.e., to an SF with a
		 different SFF) in the SFP, the SFF further encapsulates the
		 traffic in the appropriate network transport protocol and
		 delivers it to the network for delivery to the next SFF along
		 the path.  Related to this forwarding responsibility, an SFF
		 should be able to interact with metadata.
        </t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="Challenges" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Challenges with Current Framework</name>
        <t>
	   As outlined in previous sections, the Service Function Path defines
	   an ordered sequence of specific Service Function instances being
	   used for the interaction between initiator and service functions
	   along the SFP. These service functions are addressed by IP (or any
	   L2/MAC) addresses and defined as next-hop information in the
	   network locator maps of traversing SFF nodes.
        </t>
        <t>  
       As outlined in our use case, however, the service provider may want to
       provision SFC nodes based on dynamically spun-up service function
       instances so that these (now virtualized) service functions can be
       reached in the SFC domain using the SFC underlay layer.
        </t>
        <t>  
       Following the original model of SFC, any change in a specific execution
       point for a specific Service Function along the SFP will require a
       change of the SFP information (since the new service function execution
       point likely carries different IP or L2 address information) and
       possibly even the next-hop information in SFFs along the SFP. In case
       the availability of new service function instances is rather dynamic
       (e.g., through the use of container-based virtualization techniques),
       the current model and realization of SFC could lead to reducing the
       flexibility of service providers and increasing the management
       complexity incurred by the frequent changes of (service) forwarding
       information in the respective SFF nodes. This is because any change of
       the SFP (and possibly next-hop info) will need to go through suitable
       management cycles.
        </t>
        <t>
	    To address these challenges through a suitable solution, we identify the following requirements:
 
        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
			  Relations between Service Execution Points <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be
			  abstracted so that, from an SFP point of view, the
			  Logical Path never changes.
		   </li>
          <li>
			  Deriving the Service Execution Points from the
			  abstract SFP <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be fast and incur minimum delay.
		   </li>
          <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, we updated to use "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>"
     instead of "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> not" to match the use in BCP 14.  Please
     review and confirm.

Original:
   Identification of the Service Execution Points <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> not use a combination
   of Layer 2 or Layer 3 mechanisms.
-->
          <li>
			  Identification of the Service Execution Points
			  <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> use a combination of Layer 2 or Layer 3
			  mechanisms.
		   </li>
        </ul>
        <t>  
       The next section outlines a solution to address the issue, allowing for
       keeping SFC information (represented in its SFP) intact while
       addressing the desired flexibility of the service provider.
        </t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="nop" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Name-Based Operation in SFF</name>
      <section anchor="General" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>General Idea</name>
        <t>
	   The general idea is two pronged. Firstly, we elevate the definition
	   of a Service Function Path onto the level of "name-based
	   interactions" rather than limiting SFPs to Layer 2 or 3
	   information only. Secondly, we extend the operations of the SFF to
	   allow for forwarding decisions that take into account such
	   name-based interaction while remaining backward compatible to the
	   current SFC architecture as defined in <xref target="RFC7665" format="default"/>. In the following sections, we outline these two components of
	   our solution.
        </t>
        <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, is "traditional" intended to be a
reference?  Or may we update to use parentheses?

Original:
   If the next hop information in the Network Locator Map (NLM) is
   described using L2/L3 identifier, the name-based SFF (nSFF) may
   operate as described for [traditional] SFF, as defined in [RFC7665]. 

Perhaps:
   If the next-hop information in the Network Locator Map (NLM) is
   described using an L2/L3 identifier, the name-based SFF (nSFF) may
   operate as described for (traditional) SFF, as defined in [RFC7665].
-->
        <t>
	    If the next-hop information in the Network Locator Map (NLM) is
	    described using an L2/L3 identifier, the name-based SFF (nSFF) may
	    operate as described for [traditional] SFF, as defined in <xref target="RFC7665" format="default"/>.  On the other hand, if the next-hop
	    information in the NLM is described as a name, then the nSFF
	    operates as described in the following sections.
        </t>
        <t>
	    In the following sections, we outline the two components of our solution.
        </t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="nsfp" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Name-Based Service Function Path (nSFP)</name>
        <t>
		The existing SFC framework is defined in <xref target="RFC7665" format="default"/>. <xref target="Bkgnd" format="default"/> outlines that the SFP
		information is representing path information based on Layer 2
		or 3 information, i.e., MAC or IP addresses, causing the
		aforementioned frequent adaptations in cases of
		execution-point changes. Instead, we introduce the notion of a
		"name-based service function path (nSFP)".
        </t>
        <t>
         In today's networking terms, any identifier can be treated as a name,
         but we will illustrate the realization of a "Name-based SFP" through
         extended SFF operations (see <xref target="nsfffwd" format="default"/>) based on URIs as names and
         HTTP as the protocol of exchanging information. Here, URIs are being
         used to name for a Service Function along the nSFP. Note
         that the Name-based SFP approach is not restricted to HTTP (as the
         protocol) and URIs (as next-hop identifier within the SFP). Other
         identifiers such as an IP address itself can also be used and are
         interpreted as a "name" in the nSFP. IP addresses as well as fully
         qualified domain names forming complex URIs (uniform resource
         identifiers), such as www.example.com/service_name1, are all captured
         by the notion of "name" in this document.
		
        </t>
        <t>
        Generally, nSFPs are defined as an ordered sequence of the "name" of
        Service Functions (SFs), and a typical name-based Service Function Path
        may look like: 192.0.x.x -&gt; www.example.com -&gt;
        www.example2.com/service1 -&gt; www.example2.com/service2.
        </t>
        <t>
        Our use case in <xref target="Use_Case" format="default"/> can then be represented as an ordered named
        sequence. An example for a session initiation that involves an
        authentication procedure, this could look like 192.0.x.x -&gt;
        smf.example.org/session_initiate -&gt; amf.example.org/auth -&gt;
        smf.example.org/session_complete -&gt; 192.0.x.x.  (Note that this
        example is only a conceptual one since the exact nature of any future
        SBA-based exchange of 5G control-plane functions is yet to be defined
        by standardization bodies such as 3GPP).
        </t>
        <t>
        In accordance with our use case in <xref target="Use_Case" format="default"/>, any of these named
        services can potentially be realized through more than one replicated
        SF instance. This leads to making dynamic decisions on where to send
        packets along the SAME service function path information, being
        provided during the execution of the SFC.  Through elevating the SFP
        onto the notion of name-based interactions, the SFP will remain the
        same even if those specific execution points change for a specific
        service interaction.
        </t>
        <t>
        The following diagram in <xref target="fig-sfc-2" format="default"/> describes this name-based SFP
        concept and the resulting mapping of those named interactions onto
        (possibly) replicated instances.
        </t>
        <figure anchor="fig-sfc-2">
          <name>Mapping SFC onto Service Function Execution Points along a Service Function Path Based on Virtualized Service Function Instance</name>
          <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 |SERVICE LAYER                                                  |
 | 192.0.x.x --> www.example.com --> www.example2.com -->        |
 |                      ||              ||                       |
 +----------------------||--------------||-----------------------+
                        ||              ||
                        ||              ||
 +----------------------||--------------||-----------------------+
 | Underlay network     \/              \/                       |
 |               +--+ +--+ +--+    +--+ +--+ +--+                |
 |               |  | |  | |  |    |  | |  | |  |                |
 |               +--+ +--+ +--+    +--+ +--+ +--+                |
 |               Compute and       Compute and                   |
 |               storage nodes     storage nodes                 |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </section>
      <section anchor="nnlm" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Name-Based Network Locator Map (nNLM)</name>
        <t> 
        In order to forward a packet within a name-based SFP, we need to
        extend the network locator map as defined in <xref target="RFC8300" format="default"/>
        with the ability to consider name relations based on URIs as well as
        high-level transport protocols such as HTTP for means of SFC packet
        forwarding. Another example for SFC packet forwarding could be that of
        Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP).
        </t>
        <t>   
         The extended Network Locator Map or name-based Network Locator Map
         (nNLM) is shown in <xref target="fig-sfc-3" format="default"/> as an example for www.example.com being
         part of the nSFP. Such extended nNLM is stored at each SFF throughout
         the SFC domain with suitable information populated to the nNLM during
         the configuration phase.
        </t>
<!--[rfced] Formatting question: We have turned Figures 3 and 4 into
    tables.  However, this loses the line marking the 1/2-way point.
    Should these tables be split in two?  Is there another way to
    update? -->
<table anchor="fig-sfc-3"> 
  <name>Name-Based Network Locator Map</name>   
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>SPI</th>   
      <th>SI</th>
      <th>Next Hop(s)</th>
      <th>Transport Encapsulation (TE)</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>          
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>255</td>
      <td>192.0.2.1</td>
      <td>VXLAN-gpe</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>254</td>
      <td>198.51.100.10</td>
      <td>GRE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>253</td>
      <td>www.example.com</td>
      <td>HTTP</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>40</td>
      <td>251</td>
      <td>198.51.100.15</td>
      <td>GRE</td>
    </tr>
        <tr>
      <td>50</td>
      <td>200</td>
      <td>01:23:45:67:89:ab</td>
      <td>Ethernet</td>
	</tr>
	        <tr>
      <td>15</td>
      <td>212</td>
      <td>Null (end of path)</td>
      <td>None</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

        <t>
	    Alternatively, the extended network locator map may be defined
	    with implicit name information rather than explicit URIs as in
	    <xref target="fig-sfc-3" format="default"/>. In the example of <xref target="fig-sfc-4" format="default"/>, the next hop is
	    represented as a generic HTTP service without a specific URI being
	    identified in the extended network locator map. In this scenario,
	    the SFF forwards the packet based on parsing the HTTP request in
	    order to identify the host name or URI. It retrieves the URI and
	    may apply policy information to determine the destination
	    host/service.
        </t>



<table anchor="fig-sfc-4"> 
  <name>Name-Based Network Locator Map with Implicit Name Information</name>   
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>SPI</th>   
      <th>SI</th>
      <th>Next Hop(s)</th>
      <th>Transport Encapsulation (TE)</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>          
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>255</td>
      <td>192.0.2.1</td>
      <td>VXLAN-gpe</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>254</td>
      <td>198.51.100.10</td>
      <td>GRE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>253</td>
      <td>HTTP Service</td>
      <td>HTTP</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>40</td>
      <td>251</td>
      <td>198.51.100.15</td>
      <td>GRE</td>
    </tr>
        <tr>
      <td>50</td>
      <td>200</td>
      <td>01:23:45:67:89:ab</td>
      <td>Ethernet</td>
	</tr>
	        <tr>
      <td>15</td>
      <td>212</td>
      <td>Null (end of path)</td>
      <td>None</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

	
      </section>
      <section anchor="nsff" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Name-Based Service Function Forwarder (nSFF)</name>
        <t>
	     It is desirable to extend the SFF of the SFC underlay to handle
	     nSFPs transparently and without the need to insert any service
	     function into the nSFP. Such extended name-based SFFs would then
	     be responsible for forwarding a packet in the SFC domain as per
	     the definition of the (extended) nSFP.
        </t>
        <t>	 
        In our exemple realization for an extended SFF, the solution
        described in this document uses HTTP as the protocol of forwarding SFC
        packets to the next (name-based) hop in the nSFP.

<!--[rfced] Please review this sentence as it contains a subject/verb
    error (i.e., The URI ...are the names.."  Should this be singular
    or plural?

Original:
The URI in the
HTTP transaction are the names in our nSFP information, which will be
used for name based forwarding.
-->
	The URI in the HTTP
        transaction are the names in our nSFP information, which will be used
        for name-based forwarding.
        </t>
        <t>   
        Following our reasoning so far, HTTP requests (and more specifically,
        the plaintext-encoded requests above) are the equivalent of packets
        that enter the SFC domain. In the existing SFC framework, an
        IP payload is typically assumed to be a packet entering the SFC domain. This
        packet is forwarded to destination nodes using the L2
        encapsulation. Any layer 2 network can be used as an underlay
        network. This notion is now extended to packets being possibly part of
        an entire higher-layer application such as HTTP requests. The handling
        of any intermediate layers, such as TCP and IP, is left to the realization
        of the (extended) SFF operations towards the next (named) hop. For
        this, we will first outline the general lifecycle of an SFC packet in
        the following subsection, followed by two examples for determining
        next-hop information in <xref target="localfwd" format="default"/>, finished up by a layered view on
        the realization of the nSFF in <xref target="httpresp" format="default"/>.
        </t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="arch" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>High-Level Architecture</name>
        <figure anchor="fig-sfc-5">
          <name>High-Level Architecture</name>
          <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
+----------+
| SF1      |                 +--------+                  +------+ 
| instance |\                |   NR   |                  | SF2  | 
+----------+ \               +--------+                  +------+ 
              \                  ||                         ||
+------------+ \ +-------+   +---------+   +---------+   +-------+
| Classifier |---| nSFF1 |---|Forwarder|---|Forwarder|---| nSFF2 |    
+------------+   +-------+   +---------+   +---------+   +-------+
                                                            ||
                                                        +----------+ 
                                                        | Boundary |
                                                        |  node    |
                                                        +----------+]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>
	    The high-level architecture for name-based operation shown in
	    <xref target="fig-sfc-5" format="default"/> is very similar to the SFC architecture as described in
	    <xref target="RFC7665" format="default"/>. Two new functions are introduced, as
	    shown in the above diagram: namely, the name-based Service Function
	    Forwarder (nSFF) and the Name Resolver (NR).
        </t>
        <t>
		nSFF (name-based Service Function Forwarder) is an extension
		of the existing SFF and is capable of processing SFC packets
		based on name-based Network Locator Map (nNLM) information,
		determining the next SF where the packet should be forwarded,
		and the required transport encapsulation. Like standard SFF
		operation, it adds transport encapsulation to the SFC packet
		and forwards it.
        </t>
        <t>
		The Name Resolver is a new functional component, capable of
		identifying the execution endpoints, where a "named SF" is
		running, triggered by suitable resolution requests sent by the
		nSFF. Though this is similar to DNS function, it is not
		same. It does not use DNS protocols or data records. A new
		procedure to determine the suitable routing/forwarding
		information towards the Nsff (name-based SFF) serving the next
		hop of the SFP (Service Function Path) is used. The details are
		described later.
        </t>
        <t>
        The other functional components, such as Classifier and SF, are the same as
        described in SFC architecture, as defined in <xref target="RFC7665" format="default"/>, while the Forwarders shown in the above diagram are traditional
        Layer 2 switches.
        </t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="steps" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Operational Steps</name>
        <!-- [rfced] It may be more clear for readers if the example chain is
 separated into its own paragraph.

Original:
   We utilize the high-level architecture in
   Figure 5 to describe the traversal between two service function
   instances of an nSFP-based transactions in an example chain of :
   192.0.x.x -> SF1 (www.example.com) -> SF2 (www.example2.com) -> SF3
   -> ... Service Function 3 (SF3)is assumed to be...

Perhaps:
   We utilize the high-level architecture in
   Figure 5 to describe the traversal between two service function
   instances of an nSFP-based transaction in an example chain of :
   192.0.x.x -> SF1 (www.example.com) -> SF2 (www.example2.com) -> SF3
   -> ... 

   Service Function 3 (SF3)is assumed to be...
-->
        <t>
		 In the proposed solution, the operations are realized by the
		 name-based SFF, called "nSFF". We utilize the high-level
		 architecture in <xref target="fig-sfc-5" format="default"/> to describe the traversal between
		 two service function instances of an nSFP-based transaction
		 in an example chain of: 192.0.x.x -&gt; SF1 (www.example.com)
		 -&gt; SF2 (www.example2.com) -&gt; SF3 -&gt; ... Service Function 3
		 (SF3)is assumed to be a classical Service Function; hence,
		 existing SFC mechanisms can be used to reach it and will not
		 be considered in this example.
        </t>
        <t>
         According to the SFC lifecycle, as defined in <xref target="RFC7665" format="default"/>, based on our example chain above, the traffic originates from a
         Classifier or another SFF on the left. The traffic is processed by
         the incoming nSFF1 (on the left side) through the following
         steps. The traffic exits at nSFF2.
        </t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="Step %d:" group="steps" indent="9">
          <li anchor="step1">
            
		     At nSFF1, the following nNLM is assumed:</li>
            


	</ol>
<table anchor="fig-sfc-6"> 
  <name>nNLM at nSFF1</name>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>SPI</th>   
      <th>SI</th>
      <th>Next Hop(s)</th>
      <th>Transport Encapsulation (TE)</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>         
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>255</td>
      <td>192.0.2.1</td>
      <td>VXLAN-gpe</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>254</td>
      <td>198.51.100.10</td>
      <td>GRE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>253</td>
      <td>www.example.com</td>
      <td>HTTP</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>252</td>
      <td>www.example2.com</td>
      <td>HTTP</td>
    </tr>
        <tr>
      <td>40</td>
      <td>251</td>
      <td>198.51.100.15</td>
      <td>GRE</td>
	</tr>
	    <tr>
      <td>50</td>
      <td>200</td>
      <td>01:23:45:67:89:ab </td>
      <td>Ethernet</td>
	    </tr>
	        <tr>
      <td>15</td>
      <td>212</td>
      <td>Null (end of path)</td>
      <td>None</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
	        <ol spacing="normal" type="Step %d:" group="steps" indent="9">
          <li anchor="step2">nSFF1 removes the previous transport
		   encapsulation (TE) for any traffic originating from another
		   SFF or classifier (traffic from an SF instance does not
		   carry any TE and is therefore directly processed at the
		   nSFF).
		   </li>
          <li anchor="step3">
		    nSFF1 then processes the Network Service Header
		    (NSH) information, as defined in <xref target="RFC8300" format="default"/>, to identify the next SF at the nSFP level by mapping
		    the NSH information to the appropriate entry in its nNLM
		    (see <xref target="fig-sfc-6" format="default"/>) based on the provided SPI/SI information in
		    the NSH (see <xref target="Bkgnd" format="default"/>) in order to determine the
		    name-based identifier of the next-hop SF. With such nNLM
		    in mind, the nSFF searches the map for SPI = 10 and SI =
		    253. It identifies the next hop as = www.example.com and
		    HTTP as the protocol to be used. Given that the next hop
		    resides locally, the SFC packet is forwarded to the SF1
		    instance of www.example.com. Note that the next hop could
		    also be identified from the provided HTTP request, if the
		    next-hop information was identified as a generic HTTP
		    service, as defined in <xref target="nnlm" format="default"/>.
           </li>
          <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have updated the following sentence for clarity. Please
let us know if this changes the intended meaning.

Original:
   ...and modifies the NSH by setting
   SPI = 10, SI = 252 for forwarding the packet along the SFP.

Updated:
   ...and modifies the NSH by setting
   SPI = 10 and SI = 252 for forwarding the packet along the SFP.
-->
         <li anchor="step4">
             The SF1 instance then processes the received SFC packet
             according to its service semantics and modifies the NSH by
             setting SPI = 10 and SI = 252 for forwarding the packet along the
             SFP. It then forwards the SFC packet to its local nSFF, i.e.,
             nSFF1.
		   </li>
          <li anchor="step5">nSSF1 processes the NSH of the SFC packet again,
		   now with the NSH modified (SPI = 10, SI = 252) by the SF1
		   instance. It retrieves the next-hop information from its
		   nNLM in <xref target="fig-sfc-6" format="default"/> to be www.example2.com. Due to this SF
		   not being locally available, the nSFF consults any locally
		   available information regarding routing/forwarding towards
		   a suitable nSFF that can serve this next hop.
		   </li>
         <li anchor="step6">If such information exists, the Packet (plus the NSH information) is marked to be sent towards the nSFF serving the next hop based on such information in <xref target="step8"
	  format="none">Step 8</xref>.</li>
          <li anchor="step7">If such information does not exist, nSFF1 consults the
           Name Resolver (NR) to determine the suitable routing/forwarding
           information towards the identified nSFF serving the next hop of the
           SFP.  For future SFC packets towards this next hop, such resolved
           information may be locally cached, avoiding contacting the Name
           Resolver for every SFC packet forwarding. The packet is now marked
           to be sent via the network in <xref target="step8"
	  format="none">Step 8</xref>.
		   </li>
           <li anchor="step8">Utilizing the forwarding information
	   determined in Steps <xref target="step6"
	  format="none">6</xref> or <xref target="step7"
	  format="none">7</xref>, nSFF1 adds the suitable transport encapsulation (TE) for
           the SFC packet before forwarding via the forwarders in the network
           towards the next nSFF22.</li>
          <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have updated the following sentence for clarity. Please
let us know if this changes the intended context.

Original:
   Step 9: When the Packet (+NSH+TE) arrives at the outgoing nSFF2,
   i.e., the nSFF serving the identified next hop of the SFP, removes
   the TE and processes the NSH to identify the next-hop information.

Updated:
   Step 9: When the Packet (+NSH+TE) arrives at the outgoing nSFF2,
   i.e., the nSFF serving the identified next hop of the SFP, it removes
   the TE and processes the NSH to identify the next-hop information.
-->
           <li anchor="step9">
            When the Packet (+NSH+TE) arrives at the outgoing nSFF2,
           i.e., the nSFF serving the identified next hop of the SFP, it removes
           the TE and processes the NSH to identify the next-hop
           information. At nSFF2 the nNLM in <xref target="fig-sfc-7" format="default"/> is assumed. Based on
           this nNLM and NSH information where SPI = 10 and SI = 252, nSFF2
           identifies the next SF as www.example2.com.
          </li></ol>


<table anchor="fig-sfc-7"> 
  <name>nNLM at SFF2</name>    <!-- Give the table a title -->
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>SPI</th>    <!-- <th>:  headings -->
      <th>SI</th>
      <th>Next Hop(s)</th>
      <th>Transport Encapsulation (TE)</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>          <!-- The rows -->
    <tr>
      <td>10</td>
      <td>252</td>
      <td>www.example2.com</td>
      <td>HTTP</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>40</td>
      <td>251</td>
      <td>198.51.100.15</td>
      <td>GRE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>50</td>
      <td>200</td>
      <td>01:23:45:67:89:ab</td>
      <td>Ethernet</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15</td>
      <td>212</td>
      <td>Null (end of path)</td>
      <td>None</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

           <ol spacing="normal" type="Step %d:" group="steps"
	       indent="9">
          <li anchor="step10">If the next hop is locally registered at the
		   nSFF, it forwards the packet (+NSH) to the service function
		   instance using suitable IP/MAC methods for doing so.</li>
          <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have updated the following sentence for clarity. Please let
us know any objections.

Original:
   o  Step 10: If the next hop is locally registered at the nSFF, it...
   ...
   o Step 11: Otherwise, the outgoing nSFF adds a...

Updated:
   o  Step 10: If the next hop is locally registered at the nSFF, it...
   ...
   o Step 11: If the next hop is not locally registered at the nSFF, the outgoing nSFF adds a...
-->
          <li anchor="step11">If the next hop is not locally registered at the nSFF,
           the outgoing nSFF adds a new TE information to the packet and
           forwards the packet (+NSH+TE) to the next SFF or boundary node, as
           shown in <xref target="fig-sfc-7" format="default"/>.</li>
        </ol>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="nsfffwd" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>nSFF Forwarding Operations</name>
      <t>
		 This section outlines the realization of various nSFF
		 forwarding operations in <xref target="steps" format="default"/>. Although the
		 operations in <xref target="nop" format="default"/> utilize the notion of
		 name-based transactions in general, we exemplify the
		 operations here in <xref target="nop" format="default"/> specifically for
		 HTTP-based transactions to ground our description into a
		 specific protocol for such name-based transaction. We will
		 refer to the various steps in each of the following
		 subsections.
      </t>
      <section anchor="proto" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>nSFF Protocol Layers</name>
        <t>
 <xref target="fig-sfc-8" format="default"/> shows the protocol layers based
 on the high-level architecture in <xref target="fig-sfc-5" format="default"/>.
        </t>
        <figure anchor="fig-sfc-8">
          <name>Protocol Layers</name>
          <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[                                             
+-------+  +------+----+                              +----+-----+
|App    |  |      |    |   +--------+                 |    |     |
|HTTP   |  |-------->  |   |  NR    |                 |nSFF----->|--
|TCP    |->| TCP  |nSFF|   +---/\---+                 |    | TCP | |
|IP     |  | IP   |    |       ||                     |    | IP  | |
+-------+  +------+----+  +---------+   +---------+   +----------+ |
|   L2  |  |      L2   |->|Forwarder|-->|Forwarder|-->|   L2     | | 
+-------+  +------+----+  +---------+   +---------+   +----------+ | 
  SF1           nSFF1                                     nSFF2    |                             
                                              +-------+            |
                                              | App   |/           |
                                              | HTTP  | -----------+
                                              | TCP   |\
                                              | IP    |
                                              | L2    |
                                              +-------+
                                                SF2]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>
	     The nSFF component here is shown as implementing a full
	     incoming/outgoing TCP/IP protocol stack towards the local service
	     functions, while implementing the nSFF-NR and nSFF-nSFF protocols
	     based on the descriptions in <xref target="localfwd" format="default"/>.
        </t>
        <t>   
		 For the exchange of HTTP-based service function transactions,
		 the nSFF terminates incoming TCP connections as well as
		 outgoing TCP connections to local SFs, e.g., the TCP
		 connection from SF1 terminates at nSFF1, and nSFF1 may store
		 the connection information such as socket information. It
		 also maintains the mapping information for the HTTP request
		 such as originating SF, destination SF, and socket ID. nSFF1
		 may implement sending keep-alive messages over the socket to
		 maintain the connection to SF1. Upon arrival of an HTTP
		 request from SF1, nSFF1 extracts the HTTP Request and
		 forwards it towards the next node as outlined in <xref target="nsffoperation" format="default"/>. Any returning response is mapped onto the suitable open
		 socket (for the original request) and sent towards SF1.
        </t>
        <t>
	     At the outgoing nSFF2, the destination SF2/Host is identified
	     from the HTTP request message. If no TCP connection exists to the
	     SF2, a new TCP connection is opened towards the destination SF2
	     and the HTTP request is sent over said TCP connection. The nSFF2
	     may also save the TCP connection information (such as socket
	     information) and maintain the mapping of the socket information
	     to the destination SF2. When an HTTP response is received from
	     SF2 over the TCP connection, nSFF2 extracts the HTTP response,
	     which is forwarded to the next node. nSFF2 may maintain the TCP
	     connection through keep-alive messages.
	   
        </t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="nsffoperation" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>nSFF Operations</name>
        <t>
          In this section, we present three key aspects of operations for the
          realization of the steps in <xref target="steps" format="default"/>, namely, (i) the registration
          of local SFs (for <xref target="step3" format="none">Step 3</xref> in <xref target="steps"/>), (ii) the forwarding of SFC
          packets to and from local SFs (for Steps <xref
	  target="step3" format="none">3</xref>,  <xref target="step4"
	  format="none">4</xref>, and <xref target="step10" format="none">10</xref> in
          <xref target="steps" format="default"/>), (iii) the
	  forwarding to a remote SF (for Steps <xref target="step5"
	  format="none">5</xref>, <xref target="step6"
	  format="none">6</xref>, and <xref target="step7"
	  format="none">7</xref> in <xref target="steps"/>) and to the NR as well as (iv) for the lookup
          of a suitable remote SF (for <xref target="step7"
	  format="none">Step 7</xref> in <xref target="steps" format="default"/>). We also cover
          aspects of maintaining local lookup information for reducing lookup
          latency and other issues.
        </t>
        <!-- [rfced] How can we rephrase the following definition of Path ID () for
clarity?  Note that similar text exists in more places throughout the document.

Original:
   o  Path ID (): Variable length field, Bit field derived from IPv6
      source and destination address

Perhaps:
   o  Path ID (): Variable-length bit field derived from IPv6
      source and destination address
-->
        <section anchor="nsfnr" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Forwarding between nSFFs and nSFF-NR</name>
          <t>
          Forwarding between the distributed nSFFs as well as between nSFF and
          NR is realized over the operator network via a path-based
          approach. A path-based approach utilizes path information provided
          by the source of the packet for forwarding said packet in the
          network. This is similar to segment routing albeit differing in the
          type of information provided for such source-based forwarding as
          described in this section. In this approach, the forwarding
          information to a remote nSFF or the NR is defined as a "path
          identifier" (pathID) of a defined length where said "Length" field
          indicates the full pathID length. The payload of the packet is
          defined by the various operations outlined in the following
          subsections, resulting in an overall packet being transmitted. With
          this, the generic forwarding format (GFF) for transport over the
          operator network is defined in <xref target="fig-sfc-9" format="default"/> with the length field
          defining the length of the pathID provided.
          </t>
          <figure anchor="fig-sfc-9">
            <name>Generic Forwarding Format (GFF)</name>
            <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
+---------+-----------------+------------------------//------------+
|         |                 |                       //             |
| Length  | Path ID         |  Payload             //              |
|(12 bits)|                 |                     //               |
+---------+-----------------+--------------------//----------------+]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
            Length (12 bits): Defines the length of the pathID, i.e., up to 4096 bits
          </li>
            <li>
		   Path ID (): Variable-length field, Bit field derived from
		   IPv6 source and destination address
		  </li>
          </ul>
          <!-- [rfced] Please verify the term "AND" refers to the logical "and", and "CMP"
has no expansion (truncation of "compare") in the following sentence.
Note: This relates to two instances in his document.
 
Original:
   The forwarders in Figure 8 are realized via
   SDN (software-defined networking) switches, implementing an AND/CMP
   operation based on arbitrary wildcard matching over the...
 -->
          <t>
		  For the pathID information, solutions such as those
		  in <xref target="Reed2016" format="default"/> can be used. Here, the
		  IPv6 source and destination addresses are used to
		  realize a so-called path-based forwarding from the
		  incoming to the outgoing nSFF or the NR. The
		  forwarders in <xref target="fig-sfc-8" format="default"/> are
		  realized via SDN (software-defined networking)
		  switches, implementing an AND/CMP operation based on
		  arbitrary wildcard matching over the IPv6 source and
		  destination addresses as outlined in <xref target="Reed2016" format="default"/>. Note that in the case of using
		  IPv6 address information for path-based forwarding,
		  the step of removing the transport encapsulation at
		  the outgoing nSFF in <xref target="fig-sfc-8" format="default"/> is
		  realized by utilizing the provided (existing) IP
		  header (which was used for the purpose of the
		  path-based forwarding in <xref target="Reed2016" format="default"/>)
		  for the purpose of next-hop forwarding such as that
		  of IP-based routing. As described in <xref target="step8"
	  format="none">Step 8</xref> of the
		  extended nSFF operations, this forwarding
		  information is used as traffic encapsulation. With
		  the forwarding information utilizing existing IPv6
		  information, IP headers are utilized as Transport
		  Encapsulation (TE) in this case.

		  The next-hop nSFF
		  (see <xref target="fig-sfc-8" format="default"/>) will restore the IP header
		  of the packet with the relevant IP information used to
		  forward the SFC packet to SF2, or it will create suitable
		  TE information to forward the information to another nSFF or
		  boundary node. Forwarding operations at the intermediary
		  forwarders, i.e., SDN switches, examine the pathID
		  information through a flow-matching rule in which a specific
		  switch-local output port is represented through the specific
		  assigned bit position in the pathID. Upon a positive match
		  in said rule, the packet is forwarded on said output port.
          </t>
          <t>
		  Alternatively, the solution in <xref target="I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-http-response" format="default"/> suggests using a so-called BIER
		  (Binary Indexed Explicit Replication) underlay. Here, the
		  nSFF would be realized at the ingress to the BIER underlay,
		  injecting the SFC packet header (plus the Network Service
		  Header (NSH)) with BIER-based traffic encapsulation into the
		  BIER underlay with each of the forwarders in <xref target="fig-sfc-8" format="default"/> being realized as a so-called
		  Bit-Forwarding Router (BFR) <xref target="RFC8279" format="default"/>.
          </t>
          <section anchor="transport" numbered="true" toc="default">
            <name>Transport Protocol Considerations</name>
            <t>
		  Given that the proposed solution operates at the "named-transaction" level, particularly for HTTP transactions,
		  forwarding between nSFFs and/or NR <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be implemented via
		  a transport protocol between nSFFs and/or NR in order to
		  provide reliability, segmentation of large GFF packets, and
		  flow control, with the GFF in <xref target="fig-sfc-9" format="default"/> being the basic
		  forwarding format for this.
            </t>
            <t>
		  Note that the nSFFs act as TCP proxies at ingress and
		  egress, thus terminating incoming and initiating outgoing
		  HTTP sessions to SFs.
            </t>
            <t>
		  <xref target="fig-sfc-10" format="default"/> shows the packet format being
		  used for the transmission of data, being adapted from the
		  TCP header. Segmentation of large transactions into single
		  transport protocol packets is realized through maintaining a
		  "Sequence number". A "Checksum" is calculated over a single
		  data packet with the ones-complement TCP checksum
		  calculation being used. The "Window Size" field indicates
		  the current maximum number of transport packets that are
		  allowed in-flight by the egress nSFF. A data packet is sent
		  without a "Data" field to indicate the end of the (e.g., HTTP)
		  transaction.
            </t>
            <t>
           Note that, in order to support future named transactions based on
           other application protocols, such as Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), future versions of the
           transport protocol <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> introduce a "Type" field that indicates the
           type of application protocol being used between SF and nSFF with
           "Type" 0x01 proposed for HTTP. This is being left for future study.
            </t>
            <!-- [rfced] Questions about figures:

a) In the following artwork, should the top of the table include a
line of dashes to close the top of the "16 bit" line?
Note: This applies to several tables in the document.

Original:
  
    |         16 bit        |        16 bit        |
    +______________________________________________+
    |              Sequence number                 |
    +______________________________________________+
    |       Checksum        |      Window Size     |
    +______________________________________________+
    |                      ...                     |
    |                Data (Optional)               |
    +______________________________________________+

b) We have updated to use "bits" for numbers in these figures other
than "1".  Please review and let us know any objections.
-->
            <figure anchor="fig-sfc-10">
              <name>Transport Protocol Data Packet Format</name>
              <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[

    |         16 bits       |        16 bits       |
    +----------------------------------------------+
    |              Sequence number                 |
    +----------------------------------------------+
    |       Checksum        |      Window Size     |
    +----------------------------------------------+
    |                      ...                     |
    |                Data (Optional)               |
    +----------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
            </figure>
            <t>
		  Given the path-based forwarding being used between nSFFs,
		  the transport protocol between nSFFs utilizes negative
		  acknowledgements from the egress nSFF towards the ingress
		  nSFF. The transport protocol negative Acknowledgment
		  (NACK) packet carries the number
		  of NACKs as well as the specific sequence numbers being
		  indicated as lost in the "NACK number" field(s) as shown in
		  <xref target="fig-sfc-11" format="default"/>.
            </t>
            <figure anchor="fig-sfc-11">
              <name>Transport Protocol NACK Packet Format</name>
              <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[

    |         16 bits       |        16 bits       |
    +----------------------------------------------+
    |    Number of NACKs    |                      +
    +----------------------------------------------+
    |                   NACK number                |
    +----------------------------------------------+
    +                ... NACK Number               +
    +----------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
            </figure>
            <t>
        If the indicated number of NACKs in a received NACK packet is
        nonzero, the ingress nSFF will retransmit all sequence numbers
        signaled in the packet while decreasing its congestion window size
        for future transmissions.
            </t>
            <t>
        If the indicated number of NACKs in a received NACK packet is zero, it
        will indicate the current congestion window as being successfully (and
        completely) being transmitted, increasing the congestion window size
        if smaller than the advertised "Window Size" in <xref target="fig-sfc-10" format="default"/>.
            </t>
            <t>
        The maintenance of the congestion window is subject to realization at
        the ingress nSFF and left for further study in nSFF realizations.
            </t>
          </section>
        </section>
        <section anchor="registration" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>SF Registration</name>
          <t>
		   As outlined in Steps <xref target="step3"
	  format="none">3</xref> and <xref target="step10"
	  format="none">10</xref> of <xref target="steps" format="default"/>,
		   the nSFF needs to determine if the SF derived from the
		   Name-Based Network Locator (nNLM) is locally reachable or
		   whether the packet needs to be forwarded to a remote SFF. For
		   this, a registration mechanism is provided for such local
		   SF with the local nSFF. Two mechanisms can be used for
		   this:
          </t>
          <!-- [rfced] How can we rephrase the following sentence for clarity?

Original:
   Such local registration event leads to the nSFF to register the given
   FQDN with the NR in combination with a system-unique nSFF identifier
   that is being used for path computation purposes in the NR.

Perhaps:
   Such local registration events lead to the nSFF registering the given
   FQDN with the NR in combination with a system-unique nSFF identifier
   that is being used for path-computation purposes in the NR.
-->
          <!--[rfced] Formatting question: In Section 6.2.2, we wee a list with
    two points.  Following the first point, we see a figure (Figure 12) as well
    as a bulleted list and a few added paragraphs.  Should these be
    formatted to the same level of indent as point 1?  -->
          <ol group="my_count" spacing="normal" type="(%d)" indent="6">
            <li>
            SF-initiated: We assume that the SF registers its Fully
            Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) to the local nSFF. As local
            mechanisms, we foresee that either a REST-based interface over the
            link-local link or configuration of the nSFF (through
            configuration files or management consoles) can be utilized. Such
            a local registration event leads to the nSFF to register the given
            FQDN with the NR in combination with a system-unique nSFF
            identifier that is being used for path computation purposes in the
            NR. For the registration, the packet format in <xref target="fig-sfc-12" format="default"/> is used (inserted as the payload in the GFF
            of <xref target="fig-sfc-9" format="default"/> with the pathID towards the NR).
          </li>
          </ol>
          <figure anchor="fig-sfc-12">
            <name>Registration Packet Format</name>
            <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[+---------+-----------------+------------------+
|         |                 |                  |
|   R/D   |   hash(FQDN)    |  nSFF_ID         |
| (1 bit) |   (16 bits)     |  (8 bits)        |
+---------+-----------------+------------------+]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <!-- [rfced] In the following definitions, should nSFF_ID be referred to as an
"8-bit length" to match the other definitions?

Original:
   o  R/D: 1 bit length (0 for Register, 1 for De-register)

   o  Hash(FQDN): 16 bit length for a hash over the FQDN of the SF

   o  nSFF_ID: 8 bit for a system-unique identifier for the SFF related
      to the SF.

Perhaps:
   o  R/D: 1-bit length (0 for Register, 1 for De-register)

   o  Hash(FQDN): 16-bit length for a hash over the FQDN of the SF

   o  nSFF_ID: 8-bit length for a system-unique identifier for the SFF related
      to the SF.
-->
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
               R/D: 1-bit length (0 for Register, 1 for Deregister)
            </li>
            <li>
		       hash(FQDN): 16-bit length for a hash over the FQDN of the SF
		    </li>
            <li>
			   nSFF_ID: 8 bit for a system-unique identifier for the SFF related to the SF. 
			</li>
          </ul>
          <t>
           We assume that the pathID towards the NR is known to the nSFF through configuration means.
          </t>
          <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, does the hash(FQDN) encompass the
nSFF_id information and the pathID information, or are they listed as a
sequence?

Original:
   The NR maintains an internal table that associates the hash(FQDN),
   the nSFF_id information as well as the pathID information being used
   for communication between nSFF and NR.

Perhaps:
   The NR maintains an internal table that associates the hash(FQDN),
   the nSFF_id information, as well as the pathID information being used
   for communication between nSFF and NR.

Or perhaps:
   The NR maintains an internal table that associates the hash(FQDN) to
   the nSFF_id information as well as the pathID information being used
   for communication between nSFF and NR.
-->
          <t>
			The NR maintains an internal table that associates the
			hash(FQDN), the nSFF_id information as well as the
			pathID information being used for communication
			between nSFF and NR. The nSFF locally maintains a
			mapping of registered FQDNs to IP addresses for the
			latter using link-local private IP addresses.
          </t>
          <ol group="my_count" spacing="normal" type="(%d)" indent="6">
            <li>
		    Orchestration-based: In this mechanism, we assume that
		    SFC to be orchestrated and the chain to be provided
		    through an orchestration template with FQDN information
		    associated to a compute/storage resource that is being
		    deployed by the orchestrator. We also assume knowledge at
		    the orchestrator of the resource topology. Based on this,
		    the orchestrator can now use the same REST-based protocol
		    defined in option 1 to instruct the NR to register the
		    given FQDN, as provided in the template, at the nSFF it
		    has identified as being the locally servicing nSFF,
		    provided as the system-unique nSFF identifier.
		  </li>
          </ol>
        </section>
        <section anchor="localfwd" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Local SF Forwarding</name>
          <t>
		   There are two cases of local SF forwarding, namely, the SF
		   sending an SFC packet to the local nSFF (incoming requests)
		   or the nSFF sending a packet to the SF (outgoing requests)
		   as part of Steps <xref target="step3"
	  format="none">3</xref> and <xref target="step10"
	  format="none">10</xref> in <xref target="steps" format="default"/>. In the following,
		   we outline the operation for HTTP as an example-named
		   transaction.
          </t>
          <t>
            As shown in <xref target="fig-sfc-8" format="default"/>, incoming HTTP requests from SFs are
            extracted by terminating the incoming TCP connection at their
            local nSFFs at the TCP level. The nSFF <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> maintain a mapping of
            open TCP sockets to HTTP requests (utilizing the URI of the
            request) for HTTP response association.
          </t>
          <t>
		    For outgoing HTTP requests, the nSFF utilizes the
		    maintained mapping of locally registered FQDNs to
		    link-local IP addresses (see <xref target="registration" format="default"/>, option
		    1). Hence, upon receiving an SFC packet from a remote nSFF
		    (in <xref target="step9"
	  format="none">Step 9</xref> of <xref target="steps" format="default"/>), the nSFF determines the local
		    existence of the SF through the registration mechanisms in
		    <xref target="registration" format="default"/>. If said SF does exist locally, the HTTP
		    (+NSH) packet, after stripping the TE, is sent to the
		    local SF as <xref target="step10"
	  format="none">Step 10</xref> in <xref target="steps" format="default"/> via a TCP-level
		    connection. Outgoing nSFFs <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> keep TCP connections open
		    to local SFs for improving SFC packet delivery in
		    subsequent transactions.
          </t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="httpresp" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Handling of HTTP Responses</name>
          <t>
		   When executing Steps <xref target="step3"
	  format="none">3</xref> and <xref target="step10"
	  format="none">10</xref> in <xref target="steps" format="default"/>, the SFC packet
		   will be delivered to the locally registered next hop. As
		   part of the HTTP protocol, responses to the HTTP request
		   will need to be delivered on the return path to the
		   originating nSFF (i.e., the previous hop). For this, the
		   nSFF maintains a list of link-local connection information,
		   e.g., sockets to the local SF and the pathID on which the
		   request was received. Once receiving the response, nSFF
		   consults the table to determine the pathID of the original
		   request, forming a suitable GFF-based packet to be returned
		   to the previous nSFF.
          </t>
          <t>
            When receiving the HTTP response at the previous nSFF, the nSFF
            consults the table of (locally) open sockets to determine the
            suitable local SF connection, mapping the received HTTP response
            URI to the stored request URI. Utilizing the found socket, the
            HTTP response is forwarded to the locally registered SF.
          </t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="remotefwd" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Remote SF Forwarding</name>
          <t>
		   In Steps <xref target="step5"
	  format="none">5</xref>, <xref target="step6"
	  format="none">6</xref>, <xref target="step7"
	  format="none">7</xref>, and <xref target="step8"
	  format="none">8</xref> of <xref target="steps" format="default"/>, an SFC
		   packet is forwarded to a remote nSFF based on the nNLM
		   information for the next hop of the nSFP. <xref target="remotedisc" format="default"/> handles the case of suitable
		   forwarding information to the remote nSFF not existing,
		   therefore consulting the NR to obtain suitable information.
		   <xref target="maintain" format="default"/> describes the maintenance
		   of forwarding information at the local nSFF.  <xref target="update" format="default"/> describes the update of stale forwarding
		   information. Note that the forwarding described in <xref target="nsfnr" format="default"/> is used for the actual forwarding to the
		   various nSFF components.  Ultimately, <xref target="fwd" format="default"/>
		   describes the forwarding to the remote nSFF via the
		   forwarder network.
          </t>
          <section anchor="remotedisc" numbered="true" toc="default">
            <name>Remote SF Discovery</name>
            <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, it states that figure 10 is in Section
6.2.2 while actually being in Section 6.2.1.1. Should "Figure 10" instead read
"Figure 12" (which is in Section 6.2.2.)?

Original:
   6.2.5.1.  Remote SF Discovery

      The nSFF communicates with the NR for two purposes, namely the
      registration and discovery of FQDNs.  The packet format for the
      former was shown in Figure 10 in Section 6.2.2, while Figure 13
      outlines the packet format for the discovery request.
-->
            <t>
		    The nSFF communicates with the NR for two purposes: namely,
		    the registration and discovery of FQDNs. The packet format
		    for the former was shown in <xref target="fig-sfc-10" format="default"/> in
		    <xref target="registration" format="default"/>,
		    while <xref target="fig-sfc-13" format="default"/> outlines the packet format for the
		    discovery request.
            </t>
            <figure anchor="fig-sfc-13">
              <name>Discovery Packet Format</name>
              <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
+--------------+-------------+ +--------+-----------------//--------+
|              |             | |        |                //         |
|   hash(FQDN) |  nSFF_ID    | | Length | pathID        //          |
|   (16 bits)  |  (8 bits)   | |(4 bits)|              //           |     
+--------------+-------------+ +--------+-------------//------------+
        Path Request                     Path Response]]></artwork>
            </figure>
            <!-- [rfced] How might we reformat the following bullet points for
consistency?
Note: This also applies to the fields below figure 14.

Original:
   For Path Request:

   o  Hash(FQDN): 16 bit length for a hash over the FQDN of the SF

   o  nSFF_ID: 8 bit for a system-unique identifier for the SFF related
      to the SF

   For Path Response:

   o  Length (4 bits): Defines the length of the pathID

   o  Path ID (): Variable length field, Bit field derived from IPv6
      source and destination address

Perhaps:
   For Path Request:

   o  Hash(FQDN): 16-bit length for a hash over the FQDN of the SF

   o  nSFF_ID: 8-bit length for a system-unique identifier for the SFF related
      to the SF

   For Path Response:

   o  Length: 4-bit length that defines the length of the pathID

   o  Path ID: Variable-length bit field derived from IPv6
      source and destination address
-->
            <t>
           For Path Request:
            </t>
            <ul spacing="normal">
              <li>
               hash(FQDN): 16-bit length for a hash over the FQDN of the SF
            </li>
              <li>
		       nSFF_ID: 8 bit for a system-unique identifier for the SFF related to the SF
		    </li>
            </ul>
            <t>
           For Path Response: 
            </t>
            <ul spacing="normal">
              <li>
               Length (4 bits): Defines the length of the pathID
            </li>
              <li>
		       Path ID (): Variable-length field, Bit field derived from IPv6 source and destination address
		    </li>
            </ul>
            <t>
           A path to a specific FQDN is requested by sending a hash of the
           FQDN to the NR together with its nSFF_id, receiving as a response a
           pathID with a length identifier. The NR <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> maintain a table of
           discovery requests that map discovered (hash of) FQDN to the
           nSFF_id that requested it and the pathID that is being calculated
           as a result of the discovery request.
            </t>
            <t>
            The discovery request for an FQDN that has not previously been
            served at the nSFF (or for an FQDN whose pathID information has
            been flushed as a result of the update operations in <xref target="update" format="default"/>) results in an initial latency incurred by this
            discovery through the NR, while any SFC packet sent over the same
            SFP in a subsequent transaction will utilize the nSFF-local
            mapping table. Such initial latency can be avoided by
            prepopulating the FQDN-pathID mapping proactively as part of the
            overall orchestration procedure, e.g., alongside the distribution
            of the nNLM information to the nSFF.
            </t>
          </section>
          <section anchor="maintain" numbered="true" toc="default">
            <name>Maintaining Forwarding Information at Local nSFF</name>
            <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, is the FQDN information being
mapped to a suitable pathID or to suitable pathID information?
Note: This also relates elsewhere with "a suitable TE
information."

Original:
   Each nSFF <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> maintain an internal table that maps the (hash of the)
   FQDN information to a suitable pathID information.

Perhaps:
   Each nSFF <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> maintain an internal table that maps the (hash of the)
   FQDN information to suitable pathID information.

Or Perhaps:
   Each nSFF <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> maintain an internal table that maps the (hash of the)
   FQDN information to a suitable pathID.
 -->
            <t>
		    Each nSFF <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> maintain an internal table that maps the
		    (hash of the) FQDN information to a suitable pathID
		    information. As outlined in <xref target="step7"
	  format="none">Step 7</xref> of <xref target="steps" format="default"/>, if a suitable entry does not exist for a
		    given FQDN, the pathID information is requested with the
		    operations in <xref target="remotedisc" format="default"/> and the suitable
		    entry is locally created upon receiving a reply with the
		    forwarding operation being executed as described in <xref target="nsfnr" format="default"/>.
            </t>
            <t>
            If such an entry does exist (i.e., <xref target="step6"
	  format="none">Step 6</xref> of <xref target="steps" format="default"/>), the pathID
            is locally retrieved and used for the forwarding operation in
            <xref target="nsfnr" format="default"/>.
            </t>
          </section>
          <section anchor="update" numbered="true" toc="default">
            <name>Updating Forwarding Information at nSFF</name>
            <t>
	        The forwarding information maintained at each nSFF (see
	        <xref target="maintain" format="default"/>) might need to be updated for three reasons:
            </t>
            <ol spacing="normal" type="1">
              <li>
			  An existing SF is no longer reachable: In this case,
			  the nSFF with which the SF is locally registered
			  deregisters the SF explicitly at the NR by sending
			  the packet in <xref target="fig-sfc-10" format="default"/> with the hashed FQDN and the
			  R/D bit set to 1 (for deregister).
		   </li>
              <li>
			 Another SF instance has become reachable in the
			 network (and, therefore, might provide a better
			 alternative to the existing SF): In this case, the NR
			 has received another packet with a format defined in
			 <xref target="fig-sfc-11" format="default"/> but a different nSFF_id value.
		   </li>
              <li>
			  Links along paths might no longer be reachable: The
			  NR might use a suitable southbound interface to
			  transport networks to detect link failures, which it
			  associates to the appropriate pathID bit position.
		   </li>
            </ol>
            <t>
            For this purpose, the packet format in <xref target="fig-sfc-14" format="default"/> is sent from the
            NR to all affected nSFFs, using the generic format in <xref target="fig-sfc-9" format="default"/>.
            </t>
            <figure anchor="fig-sfc-14">
              <name>Path Update Format</name>
              <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[

+---------+-----------------+--------------//----+
|         |                 |             //     |
|   Type  |     #IDs        |  IDs       //      |
| (1 bit) |    (8 bits)     |           //       |
+---------+-----------------+----------//--------+]]></artwork>
            </figure>
            <ul spacing="normal">
              <li>
               Type: 1-bit length (0 for Nsff ID, 1 for Link ID)
            </li>
              <li>
		       #IDs: 8-bit length for number of IDs in the list
		    </li>
              <li>
			  IDs: List of IDs (Nsff ID or Link ID)
			</li>
            </ul>
            <t>
			The pathID to the affected nSFFs is computed as the
			binary OR over all pathIDs to those nSFF_ids affected
			where the pathID information to the affected nSFF_id
			values is determined from the NR-local table
			maintained in the registration/deregistration
			operation of <xref target="registration" format="default"/>.
            </t>
            <t>
            The pathID may include the type of information being updated
            (e.g., node identifiers of leaf nodes or link identifiers for
            removed links). The node identifier itself may be a special
            identifier to signal "ALL NODES" as being affected.  The node
            identifier may signal changes to the network that are substantial
            (e.g., parallel link failures).  The node identifier may trigger
            (e.g., recommend) purging of the entire path table (e.g., rather
            than the selective removal of a few nodes only).
            </t>
            <t>
           It will include the information according to the type.  The
           included information may also be related to the type and length
           information for the number of identifiers being provided.
            </t>
            <t>
            In cases 1 and 2, the Type bit is set to 1 (type nSFF_id) and the
            affected nSFFs are determined by those nSFFs that have previously
            sent SF discovery requests, utilizing the optional table mapping
            previously registered FQDNs to nSFF_id values. If no table mapping
            the (hash of) FQDN to nSFF_id is maintained, the update is sent to
            all nSFFs.  Upon receiving the path update at the affected nSFF,
            all appropriate nSFF-local mapping entries to pathIDs for the
            hash(FQDN) identifiers provided will be removed, leading to a new
            NR discovery request at the next remote nSFF forwarding to the
            appropriate FQDN.
            </t>
            <t>
            In case 3, the Type bit is set to 0 (type linkID) and the affected
            nSFFs are determined by those nSFFs whose discovery requests have
            previously resulted in pathIDs that include the affected link,
            utilizing the optional table mapping previously registered FQDNs
            to pathID values (see <xref target="remotedisc" format="default"/>). Upon receiving the node
            identifier information in the path update, the affected nSFF will
            check its internal table that maps FQDNs to pathIDs to determine
            those pathIDs affected by the link problems and remove path
            information that includes the received node identifier(s). For
            this, the pathID entries of said table are checked against the
            linkID values provided in the ID entry of the path update through
            a binary AND/CMP operation to check the inclusion of the link in
            the pathIDs to the FQDNs. If any pathID is affected, the
            FQDN-pathID entry is removed, leading to a new NR discovery
            request at the next remote nSFF forwarding to the appropriate
            FQDN.
            </t>
          </section>
          <section anchor="fwd" numbered="true" toc="default">
            <name>Forwarding to Remote nSFF</name>
            <t>
		    Once Steps <xref target="step5"
	  format="none">5</xref>, <xref target="step6"
	  format="none">6</xref>, and <xref target="step7"
	  format="none">7</xref> in <xref target="steps" format="default"/> are being executed,
		    <xref target="step8"
	  format="none">Step 8</xref> finally sends the SFC packet to the remote nSFF,
		    utilizing the pathID returned in the discovery request
		    (<xref target="remotedisc" format="default"/>) or retrieved from the local pathID
		    mapping table. The SFC packet is placed in the payload of
		    the generic forwarding format in <xref target="fig-sfc-9" format="default"/> together with
		    the pathID, and the nSFF eventually executes the forwarding
		    operations in <xref target="nsfnr" format="default"/>.
            </t>
          </section>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="IANA" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document has no IANA actions. 
      </t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Security" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>Sections <xref target="nop" format="counter"/> and <xref target="nsfffwd" format="counter"/> describe the forwarding of SFC
      packets between named SFs based on URIs exchanged in HTTP messages.
      Security is needed to protect the communications between originating
      node and Ssff, between one Nsff and the next Nsff, and between Nsff and
      destination. TLS is sufficient for this and <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be used. The TLS
      handshake allows to determine the FQDN, which, in turn, is enough for the
      service routing decision. Supporting TLS also allows the possibility of
      HTTPS-based transactions.</t>
      <t> It should be noted (per <xref target="RFC3986" format="default"/>) that what a URI resolves to is not
necessarily stable.  This can allow flexibility in deployment, as described in
this document, but may also result in unexpected behavior and could provide an
attack vector as the resolution of a URI could be "hi-jacked" resulting in
packets being steered to the wrong place.  This could be particularly
important if the SFC is intended to send packets for processing at security
functions.  Such hi-jacking is a new attack surface introduced by using a
separate Name Resolver.
</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-http-response"
		      to="BIER-MULTICAST"/>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <!--[rfced] We have included a Normative Reference entry pointing to
RFC 3986 to correspond with its use in the Security Considerations
section.  Please let us know if this should be Informative
instead.  -->
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3986.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7665.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8300.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8279.xml"/>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <!-- &I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-http-response; I-D Exists -->
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-http-response.xml"/>
	
      

        <!-- [rfced] The reference [Reed2016] also has an IEEE source with a DOI. Is
this preferred over the current <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.06069.pdf> source?
-->
        <reference anchor="Reed2016" target="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.06069.pdf">
          <front>
            <title> Stateless multicast switching in software defined networks </title>
            <seriesInfo name="ICC" value="2016"/>
            <author initials="M.J." surname="Reed"/>
            <author initials="M." surname="Al-Naday"/>
            <author initials="N." surname="Thomas"/>
            <author initials="D." surname="Trossen"/>
            <author initials="G." surname="Petropoulos"/>
            <author initials="S." surname="Spirou"/>
            <date month="November" year="2016"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="Schlinker2017" target="https://research.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/sigcomm17-final177-2billion.pdf">
          <front>
            <title> Engineering Egress with Edge Fabric, Steering Oceans of Content to the World </title>
            <seriesInfo name="ACM SIGCOMM" value="2017"/>
            <author initials="B." surname="Schlinker"/>
            <author initials="H." surname="Kim"/>
            <author initials="T." surname="Cui"/>
            <author initials="E." surname="Katz-Bassett"/>
            <author initials="Harsha V." surname="Madhyastha"/>
            <author initials="I." surname="Cunha"/>
            <author initials="J." surname="Quinn"/>
            <author initials="S." surname="Hassan"/>
            <author initials="P." surname="Lapukhov"/>
            <author initials="H." surname="Zeng"/>
            <date month="August" year="2017"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have updated references "[_3GPP_SBA]" and
[_3GPP_SBA_ENHANCEMENT] to "[SDO-3GPP-SBA]" and "[SDO-3GPP-SBA-ENHANCEMENT]",
respectively, per <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/160>. Please let us
know if this is not preferred.
-->
        <!-- [rfced] A more recent version of [SDO-3GPP-SBA]("Technical Realization of
Service Based Architecture") exists. Should the reference be updated with
this newer version?

Original:
    [_3GPP_SBA]
            3GPP, "Technical Realization of Service Based
            Architecture", 3GPP TS 29.500 0.4.0, January 2018,
            <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29500.htm>.

Perhaps
   [SDO-3GPP-SBA]
            3GPP, "Technical Realization of Service Based
            Architecture", 3GPP TS 29.500 V15.4.0, June 2019,
            <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29500.htm>.
-->
        <reference anchor="SDO-3GPP-SBA" target="https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29500.htm">
          <front>
            <title> Technical Realization of Service Based Architecture </title>
            <seriesInfo name="3GPP" value="TS 29.500 V0.4.0"/>
            <author>
              <organization>3GPP</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="January" year="2018"/>
          </front>
          <format type="" target="http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29500.htm"/>
        </reference>

	
        <reference anchor="SDO-3GPP-SBA-ENHANCEMENT" target="https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_126_Montreal/Docs/S2-182904.zip">
          <front>
            <title> New SID for Enhancements to the Service-Based 5G System Architecture </title>
            <seriesInfo name="3GPP" value="S2-182904"/>
            <author>
              <organization>3GPP</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="February" year="2018"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <section anchor="Ack" numbered="false" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>
	   The authors would like to thank Dirk von Hugo and Andrew Malis for
	   their reviews and valuable comments.  We would also like to thank
	   Joel Halpern, the chair of the SFC WG, and Adrian Farrel for
	   guiding us through the IETF Independent Submission Editor (ISE)
	   path.
      </t>
    </section>
    <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions related to how terminology
     was used throughout the document.

Capitalization:

a) This document uses both "Control Plane" (uppercase) and "control
plane" (lowercase) seemingly without a difference. Should these be made
uniform?

Original:
   ...may start with signaling in the Control Plane to setup user plane
   bearers.
   ...
   Part of the control plane, the Common Control Network Function (CCNF)... 

b) This document uses both "Service Function" and "service function"
seemingly indiscriminately throughout.  Which casing is preferred?  Or
perhaps it may be best to update to use SF throughout (this would
avoid updating to hyphenate when it appears in attributive position)?
Please advise.

ex: Service Function Path, service function instance, Service Function Chain,
Service Function Forwarder, etc.

c) We see both capitalized and lowercase forms of the following terms.
Please review and let us know which is preferred.

Underlay network vs. underlay network (vs. underlay)
Classifier vs. classifier
SFC Architecture vs. SFC architecture

d)Field names: Please review the way field names are represented with
regard to quotation and capitalization.  For example:

"Length" field vs. length field

Abbreviations:
e) Please verify that POP expands to "Point of Presence" in the
following sentence.

Original:
   Instead the trend is towards
   deploying multiple POPs within the customer network, those POPs being
   connected through proprietary mechanisms [Schlinker2017] to push
   content.

f) Please verify that REST expands to "Representational State
Transfer" in the following sentence.

Original:
   Based on this, the orchestrator can now use the same REST-based protocol
   defined in option 1 to instruct the NR to...

g) We will update to use the abbreviated forms of SFP, SFC, RAN, Layer 2
and 3, TE, etc. after their first use in accordance with
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/.  Please let us know any
objections.

h) We notice a mix of use with definite articles before the
abbreviation "NR".  Please review the use of this abbreviation and
consider if cases where it appears without "the" should be made plural
(for example, "nSFFs and/or NR") to describe a general situation or if
one specific NR is meant and a definite article should be added.

-->
  </back>
</rfc>
