Minutes IETF103: mpls
minutes-103-mpls-00

Downloaded from https://etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-103-mpls

Agenda:
No.            I-D                                                  Version    
    Start Time           End Time             Duration (mins) Presenter        
   Slides Received 1              Agenda bashing, WG status reports            
       -               1:50:00 PM         2:10:00 PM         20           Chairs

2              draft-abd-mpls-ldp-identifier-name                   0          
    2:12:00 PM         2:27:00 PM         15           Anil Kumar S N (remote)
Adrian: 1) good to describe handling case of duplicate names. 2) look into
internationalization

3              draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang                             5          
    2:29:00 PM         2:39:00 PM         10           Kamran Raza No
comments/questions Loa: steps: received shepard write-up, then AD and IESG
review will follow before publication step Loa: hesistant due to amount of the
changes, to whether ask for another WGLC or not Himanshu: biased opinion, but
suggest to proceed.

4              draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang                            5          
    2:41:00 PM         2:56:00 PM         15           Kamran Raza Questions:
none

5              Update on MPLS LSP Static and MPLS Base YANG drafts  -          
    2:58:00 PM         3:08:00 PM         10           Tarek Saad Loa: the 4
YANG documents in MPLS WG are progressing to publications

6              draft-arora-mpls-spring-ttl-procedures-srte-paths    0          
    3:10:00 PM         3:25:00 PM         15           Shraddha Hegde Adrian:
why not use the discovered TTL to reach the destination of the tunnel label
instead of setting 255? Shraddha: that is possible, but this is dictated by an
RFC Sam Aldrin: why is a new return code being used? this is not backward
compatible? Why not upgrade the ingress ? Sam: major concern: why not use the
very next label TTL=1 Sam: FEC validation will fail when validation happens
Shraddha: FEC(4.4.4.4) will reach R4 (without label) Sam: where does BSID fall
into picture? Shraddha: procedures in RFC8029 Bruno: significant extension to
LSP ping, so think it should be discussed in MPLS WG Bruno: there is another
draft from Zafar on the spring agenda which is similar Loa: may need
coordination across WGs

7              draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam                      0          
    3:27:00 PM         3:37:00 PM         10           Shraddha Hegde
Questions: Loa: are you asking for WG adoption? yes

Greg M: there is a BFD document that describes applicability for BFD for P2MP
LSPs in WG poll (in BFD WG) and poll closes this Friday

Wednesday November 7, 11:20-12:20 (+07) Morning session II
No.        I-D                                                             
Version         Start Time            End Time        Duration (mins)       
Presenter 1           Agenda bashing, WG status reports           -            
      11:20:00 AM        11:21:00 AM        1        Chairs

2           draft-mirsky-mpls-oam-mpls-sr-ip               1                 
11:23:00 AM        11:35:00 AM        12        Greg Mirsky Zafar: for SR-MPLS
there's BFD solution for SR policy Greg: agrees and will add to the document

3          draft-nainar-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-sids         0                 
11:37:00 AM        11:52:00 AM        15        Zafar Ali Zafar: asking for
comments from WG on list. If none, would WG adopt Loa: 4/16 bytes to cover
V4/V6 - how Zafar: AF-type is there Loa: there is a MAY that packet can be
leaked. Please consider replacing by MUST Loa: we should coordinate where this
will go in which WG

4          draft-xie-mpls-ldp-bier-extension
           draft-xie-mpls-rsvp-bier-extension              1                  
           11:54:00 AM        12:08:00 PM        14         Jingrong Xie
Tarek: how does this compares to existing P2MP RSVP-TE, what is the benefits it
is bringing? Tarek: BIER assumes there is not control plane state created for
each tree Ans: .. Tony: BIER waa introduced to remove MLDP from there network,
you're try to bring it back --> good luck

5          MPLS RMR drafts (cross WG coordination)        -           12:10:00
PM        12:20:00 PM        10        Kireeti Kompella Loa: LDP draft is in
MPLS, for RSVP-TE, TEAS will be the place where it goes for RSVP-TE Bruno: for
SR RMR, we think it should remain in SPRING for now, no MPLS extension Kireeti:
should we progress the IGP/LSR draft? Loa: I don't want to lock-step, want to
advance as close together as reasonable as possible Loa: RMR LDP extensions are
almost ready for WGLC, I think it premature, asking WG to read the draft and
comment on the alias Loa: any comments from TEAS/SPRING WG chairs: we are OK