IETF 114 PALS/MPLS/DetNet/SPRING Joint Meeting

Tuesday, 26 July 2022 - 10:00-12:00 Meeting time/Philadelphia
Room: Independence A/B
120/120 min allocated

Chair: Andy Malis
Secretary: Dave Sinicrope
Minute-taker: Dave Sinicrope (+attendees on CodiMD/HedgeDoc)
NOTE: Attendees who want to help with notes, please enter your notes in
this facility. Dave will then add his and publish the final notes after
the session. Thanks for your help!

Note: all questions (including persons physically present) will need to
line up into the virtual queue on Meetecho

  1. Chairs Intro (Agenda Bashing, etc.)
    Chair: Andy MALIS
    Duration: 5 min

    Andy opened the meeting at 10am EDT and went through the Chair's
    No questions or comments.


    Presenter: Christian SCHMUTZER
    Duration: 10 min (combined)

    Christian presented the slides.
    Concept was introduced to BESS at IETF 108, want to introduce to
    PALS since the feedback was that it should be addressed to PALS. The
    drafts examine the deprecation of the OTN (TDM) switching layer and
    what to do with the "private line" services provided by OTN when all
    is moved to packet switching. Looks to complement SAToP / RFC4553
    for higher speed interfaces and associated signaling.
    There was a request by the author to get feedback on whether the
    signaling draft could address the SPRING Martini Pseudowires and SR

    No questions or comments

  3. Open Design Team Report
    Presenter: Tarek SAAD
    Duration: 15 min

    Tarek presented the slides providing a status update on the MPLS MNA
    Open Design Team work. It was noted that questions beyond
    clarification should be directed to the discussion at the end of the
    No questions or comments

    Presenter: Mathew BOCCI
    Duration: 10 min

    Matthew presented the slides summarizing the main changes to the
    requirements and ongoing work.
    (The MNA framework draft was noted
    * Loa Andersson: Didn't follow bit about IANA registry for user
    defined actions. The problem is that the standards part of the
    registry needs code points for the user defined actions.
    * Matthew: Correct, it should be a range
    * Tony Li: when can we expect the same update?
    * Matthew: v02 was posted this past Monday

    Presenter: Jaganbabu (Jags) RAJAMANICKAM
    Duration: 15 minutes
    (Note: previously

    Jags presented the slides -
    No questions taken. Talk ran overtime, questions pushed to
    discussion slot at end of session.

    Presenter: Haoyu SONG
    Duration: 10 min

    Haoyu presented the slides which was a review of the draft.
    It was noted that the title of the draft changed to "MPLS Post-Stack
    Extension Header" to reflect the focus of the solution.
    It was noted that the authors are requesting the WG adopt the draft
    as the solution for supporting post-stack MNAs - see the slide Next
    * Greg Mirsky: Confused with order of next steps - proposal is to
    adopt as a partial solution to MNA requirements, but as is the
    document doesn't address all the MNA requirements agreed by the WG.

    * Haoyu: this document addresses the post stack encoding that can
    be adopted with other solutions
    * Greg: would prefer a solution for all requirements, not partial

    Presenter: Kireeti KOMPELLA
    Duration: 15 minutes (combined)

    Kireeti presented the slides. It was noted that Tony Li has been
    added to the author's list to reflect his major contribution.
    Next Steps: It was noted that the authors think they are ready for
    WG adoption, and would like to start doing some prototype
    implementations to get a sense of implementation details. To do this
    an early allocation of a bSPL is needed. The WG Chairs need to
    determine the order of the Next Steps requests
    * Loa: would like a better alignment of the terminology with the
    framework.Likely not changing anything technical but would help
    reading the multiple documents.
    * Kireeti: agree
    * Loa: The the document is complete on iSD, but not as complete on
    * Kireeti: yes, intended - this document focuses on the iSD part
    and points to Jeffrey's document for pSD which has a different set
    of authors.
    * Loa: fine, but need to say it and provide pointers.
    * Kireeti: yes agreed, will do
    * Tarek: there is some resemblence with the one presented by Jagan
    earlier. The Open Design Team chairs are encouraging such similar
    solution to see if alignment can be reached.
    * Kireeti: must discuss with co-authors, while desire is to encode
    multiple actions and data with the actions, the encodings are
    different. Desire is to implements what is in this draft and get
    feedback. If after that point it is possible to converge, will look
    at that.
    * Loa: what is meant by implement? prototype or product
    * Kireeti: alpha/lab implementation
    * Loa: should do for all and compare
    * Kireeti: cycles and resource issues. Others are welcome to do
    others and we can compare. Authors will focus on this draft and
    collect feedback just on this draft, looking at different drafts.
    * Haoyu: comment - good idea to compare solution proposals from
    different proposals on overhead, performance, etc. On one side we
    can ask ASIC experts and also do a software evaluation very quickly
    to get some feedback on performance.
    * Kireeti: good point but take in steps - step 1 is proposal
    implementable and what are the issues. Next step would be to do
    comparison with different implementations. then share the metrics
    * Haoyu: different ideas to implement
    * Kireeti: right, but one step at a time
    * Wim Henderickx: not necessarily question to Kireeti, but to WG -
    on pSD we are converging. for iSD we have competing solutions where
    one is moving ahead. Is this aligned with the working group
    objectives. If each focuses on own, will we be able to converge onto
    most hardware.
    * Kireeti: Just want to know if our particular approach works and
    get feedback. Convergence is important so if alternative approach
    did a similar preliminary implementation and then make comparisons
    would be good and provide input as how to converge them.
    * Loa: can't answer what the WG's take is now, needs discussion,
    but on same page as Wim, need to look at how best to reach
    implementable compatible solution. Understandable that some
    companies want to proceed to test own solution, but will eventually
    need to come back to WG.
    * Kireeti: yes, but implementation will provide valuable feedback
    and practical experience. We will come back and look at any
    agreeable metrics to see where we score.
    * Tarek: as co-Chair understand desire to diverge, but the Open DT
    owes the group reasons for why can't converge.
    * Kireeti: yes, but not there yet, just want to implement to get
    experience and then look at convergence and issues with convergence.

    * Zafar Ali: What we have done in the past is to define metrics to
    use to give feedback to the WG.
    * Kireeti: agree we would eventually need to define metrics
    * Andy: you still have 3 slides...
    * Kireeti: yes the NFFFRR draft - was a stand alone draft asking
    for a new bSPL, now just asks for a bit or action in the MNA
    document. This should discontinue gettin bogged down with the SPL.
    Other than this feedback received has been incorporated. It was
    noted that no alternatives proposed to the general problem. The
    authors ask for WG adoption. The authors also will include in the
    protoyping mentioned above.
    * Ketan Talaulikar: there are issues with the solution that are
    related to BESS and SPRING work - will follow up on the mailing
    * Kireeti: the goal here was a Data plane solution
    * Wen Lin: am aware that 2 IETFs ago there was a proposal for an
    alternative solution. It wasn noted at that time that this solution
    is more scalable and that EVPN is a different types of service and
    that this solution is more general and flexible e.g., this applies
    for L3VPN and other services.
    * Kireeti: we owe Ketan a response on the mailling list
    * Ketan: we will discuss, suggest the BESS WG - not saying that
    the BESS draft is complete but should be considered
    * Haoyu: interesting use case that should be considered in
    discussion. This action is applied at the MPLS path not at the edge.
    This implies some actions on the forwarding path, which makes things
    more flexible but not currently reflected in the other documents.
    * Greg Mirsky: remind NFFRR is part of the use cases document
    adopted by the WG

    No further questions

  8. Open Discussion (followup on Open DT activities)
    Duration: 40 min
    Andy opened the discussion

5 min left - Andy cut queue

Andy closed the meeting at noon local time.

Meeting Chat comments (See for details)


● Agenda
● Etherpad/CODIMD
● Jabber room:
● MPLS Open Design Team Wiki (The MPLS open design team keeps a log of
its work here:
● If you have any general issues with Meetecho, the meeting audio, etc.,
send an email to (Note: a Meetecho tech will be
monitoring Jabber during the meeting)