Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 14 February 2019 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6469613119D; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:37:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SnvI1dj6Hl0l; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:37:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 914F413119C; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:37:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id e27so5420691lfj.8; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:37:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mfl+sCwxkGvJxJERq3lMvJ/wolMyQgf0FZvPUf2dJIY=; b=fsh8cuIxLDW1J+LbBypZzQPi/MG8c8uJKMkmyedGx1FUzKFSMg2D/OERs3lXUqXb5q kfpz564de9cC9WszxvSlfrU9e7Uyr+bxz/KkKbellb7p8aVu7ZHnmkhHywXOzQ9mdL2D 60Q4zbYPf+pOmNUnAcEFoKypC6LU2dsGcKv3dQWftarMz2OW9ZLU4cNrlHsakRnf42ga oeLoSIky3yk3ohU4fd0XkTywAoFVYwvgkcZjGAv9O8mGwlHFGwwlXJ7j89kLkxK2wBYx bJ93apwJPbv9fcQ1Ns7xg4Vau4muLAb6DeG2ASs5A0Zuh8SknZCTFLoPo2/HwoABFlTU 3Now==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mfl+sCwxkGvJxJERq3lMvJ/wolMyQgf0FZvPUf2dJIY=; b=IfPpreWaZ2mHklprWBGnKZAnpR88Ejsn1ZJ8LvRMTewcyFCV6lWEtQ+E5caMJPDJQp TGMrl8EWthlNugE7uf3wDU0tQVI8anS+AKMsxjbrI0sZ8A40XfXE8EUYla3TTMXuQ9+c 3ERaz+TI49NWsJQcnW7rZHvreoIxMKXomF/+yf9QNdg32CJY4nsXOnL5Oe7ax+lPrlna yewFSElHIDxcIRyJiU1cfzb6GFDECQN5Z2LrqUHTdfvzlYglGoMMEbvEnKMl78TDPGhp Alck2YrmaILpRwThFa1Om+/mL14SEKhF344Xx2cu//J+0JDY/o8qrXVsSo0Z7UQFxt6X AXvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuadN2uVGRtsiM9AXkp7+k8khk7UwKQBj7iIiwe67nDERyh46V25 QoYL14awJJE8UyVPm1dXpwWSjVZYui+EVvKO2kc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY8tRtlYL7VXzGJd22+yjcXLkWzL7gPo16W/t3QhbsfvPOXiYLC7Dl+4bj+1uVnJnUJjwt52XVYExIQRArHsRg=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:9dd1:: with SMTP id g200mr3278526lfe.127.1550173055558; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:37:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0980ce7c-047c-519f-e7d5-98d32b498482@pi.nu> <9419b7d7-87ef-151f-5ed8-b0f78c6e83af@gmail.com> <AM6PR03MB3830EBBF1D04E91C35E7B8C99D670@AM6PR03MB3830.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR03MB3830EBBF1D04E91C35E7B8C99D670@AM6PR03MB3830.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:37:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVObxJqsYvntWBR3RWq3=fTs72y-4Zb3mM2aHnmLZZx1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org" <draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000512b060581dfca9d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/5izlZArP9D-s_1LPVud-ic0cae4>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:37:43 -0000

Dear All,
I concur with all what has been said in support of the adoption of this
draft by SPRING WG. The document is well-written, addresses the real
problem in SR-MPLS, and the proposed solution is technically viable.
My comments and questions are entirely for further discussion:

   - would the draft be expanded to demonstrate how "the Path Segment may
   be used to identify an SR-MPLS Policy, its Candidate-Path (CP) or a SID
   List (SL)"?
   - as many use cases for the Path Segment are related to OAM operations,
   it would be helpful to expand on the use of GAL and the Path Segment.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:12 AM Alexander Vainshtein <
Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:

> +1.
>
>
>
> I have been following this draft from its -00 revision. The current
> revision has resolved most of the issues I (and others) have been raised
> (e.g., elimination of excessive options).
>
>
>
> From my POV, in its current state the draft meets two basic requirements
> for the WG adoption:
>
> 1.       It addresses a real and relevant problem, namely the MPLS Flow
> Identification problem discussed in general in RFC 8372
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8372> and scoped to SR-MPLS LSPs in this
> draft. Specifics of SR-MPLS include the need to provide end-to-end liveness
> check that is one of the requirements explicitly specified in Section 2 of RFC
> 8355 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8355>.
>
> 2.       It provides a reasonable (from my POV) approach to  solution of
> this problem.
>
>
>
> I also concur with Stewart’s comment about strong similarity between the
> approach taken in this draft for SR-MPLS and generic work in progress on
> synonymous flow labels
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04> that has
> been already adopted as a MPLS WG item.  To me this is yet another
> indication that the draft should be adopted.
>
>
>
> My 2c,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Office: +972-39266302
>
> Cell:      +972-549266302
>
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:48 PM
> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>nu>; spring@ietf.org;
> draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment
>
>
>
> I have just read the draft and agree that it should be adopted by the WG.
> It solves an important problem in instrumenting and protecting an SR path.
>
>
>
> It should be noted that we needed to do something very similar in
> mainstream MPLS via the synonymous label work which is already adopted.
>
> However SL did not address the SR case. We therefore need this path label
> work to be progressed.
>
>
>
> - Stewart
>
>
>
> On 10/02/2019 08:11, Loa Andersson wrote:
>
> > Working Group,
>
> >
>
> > I have reviewed draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment and as far as I
>
> > can see, it is ready for wg adoption.
>
> >
>
> > There were some comments in Bangkok, but due to the many collisions
>
> > between working groups at that meeting I couldn't attend the SPRING
>
> > f2f.
>
> >
>
> > The minutes are not clear, but as far as I understand, there is
>
> > nothing that can't be resolved in the wg process.
>
> >
>
> > /Loa
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> spring mailing list
>
> spring@ietf.org
>
> https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
> information which is
> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have
> received this
> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
> delete the original
> and all copies thereof.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>