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