Minutes for MPLS at IETF-96
minutes-96-mpls-1

MPLS WG (thanks to minute taker: Dhruv Dhody)
10:00-12:30 (CEST) Monday July 18, 2016 - Morning Session I

Ross would be steping down as WG chair.
Thank you Ross for your many years of service!

(0) Agenda bashing, WG status reports - Chairs

Luca: RFC5036bis could it be internet standards, it impact another bis document
because of downref. Tarek: Suggest to move ahead the FRR sumary draft seperately

(1) RFC  4379 bis. - Carlos

Kireeti: Not sure if we do Yang models as internet standards, but having a
basic yang model for 4379bis would be good that could be augmented by others.
Loa: Idnits issue because of the bis document update. Carlos: Will send a note
to the tools team. Loa: All drafts which reference RFC4379, should think
carefully if they should use RFC4379bis instead.

(2) draft-shen-mpls-egress-protection-framework-02 - Yimin

Ahmed - you assume {E,P} and context ID exist. In framework you are mandating
things. There are solution that does not use these. Could this be in RTGWG as
this could be beyond MPLS. Hanees - I do not concur, this is MPLS specific
Ahmed - This is general routing problem Kiretti - I agree with Hannes, this
might be a general problem but we are looking at MPLS solution. George - Take
the general solution by writing a draft in RTGWG Ahmed - For a framework, this
is very specific to a solution. There are solution that might not use. Kiretti
- if the service are signalled by egress router and has another router as
protection, today MPLS doesnt solve this well. This could be used for L2VPN,
L3VPN, PWE3 and thus it is a framework. Loa - There is a mix of framework and
solution, you might need to disassociate. Adrian - Lets not hang up on word
framework. Ahmed - Even though you confine work for L2/L3/PWE3, there are
solution that doesnt align to this framework. Chairs - Take this discussion to
the list.

(3) draft-deshmukh-rsvp-rmr-extension-00 - Kireeti

Julien: Relationship between your proposal and the reservation style (FF) is
not clear. Greg Mirsky - How are you taking care of looping. Kiretti - TTL
takes care of the loop. Should the Ring LSP is kept alive is the key question.
George - If you set TTL high on a small ring there would be a lot of traffic.

(4) draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-02 - Kireeti

Chris Bowers - It is better not to link timing to the Ring architecture
George - Bypass link and timing is another
Greg - Bidirectional corouted path helps
Stewert - Decouple the timing and topology problem.

(5) draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00 - Gregory Mirsky

Loa - How many have read the draft, Read the draft and we can discuss again.
Greg - will be presented in BFD and BESS

(6,7) draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-framework - Stewart Bryant
draft-bryant-mpls-rfc6374-over-udp-00
draft-bryant-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-00
draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control-00

Loa - If you add DOS washing (SFC like usecase) you need to explain this in the
document. George - We should just remove it.

Eric Grey - i can sense a conflict of purpose built and generally applicable
Stewart - do we modify all control plane protocols or we design a single
protocol ; not an easy choice. Chris Bowers - Is Entropy Label a reasonable
example? Stewart - we do need to decide which approach to take

(8) draft-leipnitz-spring-pms-implementation-report-00 - Ruediger Geib

Ahmed - Independent of the control plane, LDP and SR or RSVP..
Jen - If you have Link Aggretion on path, the delay information isnt clear
Ahmed - There is draft to allow this in SR to direct traffic to a member,
applicable to ECMP. Greg - IEEE also has extention for this.

(9) draft-xu-mpls-payload-protocol-identifier - Xiaohu

Loa - It was decided not to have payload type earlier. We should discuss
weather or not if we need to include first. Stewert - Does it belong on MPLS or
Pseudowire? A control word can be added there. Is it a general purpose solution
or a specific solution.

Any questions for any presentation?