MPLS session - Wednesday, March 27, 2019 - 11:20-13:20 Morning session II No. I-D Version Start Time End Time Duration (mins) Presenter Slides Received 1 Agenda bashing, WG status reports - 11:20:00 11:35:00 15 Chairs 2 draft-nslag-mpls-deprecate-md5 4 11:36:00 11:44:00 8 Andrew Malis Y 3 draft-andersson-mpls-spl-terminology 1 11:45:00 11:55:00 10 Adrian Farrel Y 4 draft-hu-mpls-sr-inter-domain-use-cases 1 11:56:00 12:06:00 10 Quan Y 5 draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg 10 12:07:00 12:22:00 15 Greg MIRSKY Y 6 draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification 0 12:23:00 12:33:00 10 Nagendra Kumar Y 7 draft-chen-mpls-cqf-lsp-dp 0 12:34:00 12:42:00 8 Zhe Chen Y 8 draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation 0 12:43:00 12:51:00 8 Xiao Min Y 9 draft-kumar-mpls-mint 0 12:51:00 13:01:00 10 Jai Kumar Y 1) Agenda (Loa): Misref (draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label) document: Adrian: Waiting on the base SR draft. That completed LC and waiting for the sheppard write-up to move forward 2) draft-nslag-mpls-deprecate-md5 4 11:36:00 11:44:00 8 Andrew Malis Y Rajiv Asati: aware of 10 (at least) network that use LDP with MD5 Would they care to replace MD5 with AO - not sure probably no Maybe draft would have clear recommendation on what to use Adrian : use of MD5 as security MD5 is not secure to be called security Nothing happened so far - so why care, is this enough to call it secure? Loa: MD5 is there in networks do they know/care if it is secure enough what are the threats and are they addressed by MD5, by AO? Deborah: agree with Adrian. It is important to discuss this 3) draft-andersson-mpls-spl-terminology 1 11:45:00 11:55:00 10 Adrian Farrel Y Julien Muric: Does it mean we can have ebSPL? 4) draft-hu-mpls-sr-inter-domain-use-cases 1 11:56:00 12:06:00 10 Quan Y Loa: SPRING charter says that it works within 1 trust domain (with some exception) The work presented is for cross-domains, -> Deborah should charter for SPRING change May need some discussion on trust domains assumption can be made that SR domain and MPLS-TP domain Deborah: with care of the word "domain" what it means Work with the chairs of SR and this is still an early document suggest to cc the SR list to engage/feedback {...}/Juniper: what do you mean by domain? IGP area? AS? technoliogy domain? Charle Halpern To interwork between SR-MPLS and MPLS-TP Suggest to drop the inter-domain argument to simplify the discussion Greg Mirstky: clarify how the name is used in the context of this proposal (as Debora said) Suggest aligning with interpretation with SR-MPLS terminolgy We'll need to clarify mapping of SR-domain and this usecase Adrian: SPRING used "SR domain" as a trust domain 5) draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg 10 12:07:00 12:22:00 15 Greg MIRSKY Y Loa: Started a WGAP, but found issues. Closed WGAP and asked Greg to work with reviewers to address comments and will restart the WGAP later Tarek/Nagendra: the RSVP IPv4 LSP FEC and IPv6 LSP FEC is defined and used in OAM 6) draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification 0 12:23:00 12:33:00 10 Nagendra Kumar Y Loa: procedural. You need to send a request for WGAP (for book keepoing) 7) draft-chen-mpls-cqf-lsp-dp 0 12:34:00 12:42:00 8 Zhe Chen Y Rajiv: how upstream router learns ... Greg: For DETNET - even for local behavior -- document is useful to clarify xx Title mention CQF (IEEE) and then large-scale A: this draft target large scale and LDN .. maybe terms are not correct Loa: there are some questions that we're asking clarification, so lets use the list to clarify 8) draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation 0 12:43:00 12:51:00 8 Xiao Min Y Qs: none Loa: authors need to push the discussion on the list 9) draft-kumar-mpls-mint 0 12:51:00 13:01:00 10 Jai Kumar Y Greg: We had the discussion when original proposal when iOAM and this may be misleading Active OAM can be in-band In MPLS, with EL then they are in-band in-band: follow same nodes/links A: open to changes in the name of the draft Greg: 2 or 3 proposals in IPPM - not dataplane specific on-path telemetry collection instead of using label - why not use GACH type A:GAch: was considered but there was issues - will add to appendix Have you looked at the applicability of this to SR-MPLS May have multiple insertions due to Adrian: Please take out the IANA allocated value and add TBD Nagendra: what happen on the egress A: there are 2 ways to handle it - may be ok for flexible NPU Greg: I strongly encourge to read the other propsals Loa: expect authors to pushing discussion on the list