IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Last call on tidying up Expired MPLS WG I-Ds

Loa Andersson <loa.pi.nu@gmail.com> Mon, 08 January 2024 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <loa.pi.nu@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 740DEC14F706; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:57:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, MPART_ALT_DIFF=0.79, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PB8OE7rb_uY8; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa1-x30.google.com (mail-oa1-x30.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB9A4C14F703; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:57:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa1-x30.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-20400d5b54eso1323517fac.1; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:57:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704704250; x=1705309050; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=D6477iV0hYNlDUY6azGF1CtCXJWCqe8pItBMVBbfvy0=; b=KBkOMx6+E6XSrP8M8mN6MHbOfHnSMHIEF2f7L6UppvXUFoM8++9JE5LnxBLIy3JtOO gGPWz7rwhKlL887rjqd4tApBoRFVnTr62dzV/dePju6q8c00t34dEBWVJukTEO7Pz3AJ JTwXTXdSXDgUlJijgJpqKijYcQyL3EnWo+L+00X+Sze+HDDwi5c7SW2ZJpYJJPTpNvxZ Rhs9DbhJg3jA2POS17DfOcBBNxqIt2WIXWQop6N8KMyWX4fKAZ6jmxCel2QNgR4eN0Z6 T9119RTzGHv4lYgtH26yo0U5JiexLKebdvUjLMy6ZXGn6tcMRIOegyhJP55EZfy/il4X MNXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704704250; x=1705309050; h=to:references:message-id:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=D6477iV0hYNlDUY6azGF1CtCXJWCqe8pItBMVBbfvy0=; b=pWC/un45nKeFsNcIDxBAKP2+4NUp1Lnc9lNFoEj4O4YtUYzAyi7k6dlPgXoaN04pYh NKbLkfRuPj1PAW2r04XWukYWX/MXolHnKzQR2zuYrbI+B9eARSYdvsgN2akInrUNWz1J NK3KzO2JJ7ynLHki8yfUCqiquyGMVTIKIZaAEQoSjSgGRl/R4Sg/QyVoIrAoOMZpxZFW 7KU2kBRqug/FyuMcZA1aad32oEA5UMtdcbfJaWiLRaSeSUmHK0tmjY7BtGtcU7acRk3b yYJWajn4nBpg65N/UbgWusCuDa9NiOfHoPs/NBgezfpuv1VlxXFu0AcEtKuPY6whnUod Ux+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwwYM2S8pxCIFlzvN/4CDL/WH7l+nQnKKGg1s/WNAmbDbyHv4yG 1x5Ll0xCfoFj0Nxg349EnlU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG+q7qG261nIMucr6stO59jDVpV1UaPa1d0FiqviVBXkUY69x1Pd0DrLH6OHo6/fmGOWwzjGQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:a710:b0:205:f103:773 with SMTP id g16-20020a056870a71000b00205f1030773mr4797363oam.54.1704704249998; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2001:4451:1119:c900:317c:43b2:c9fe:5300]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w22-20020a63c116000000b005ccf10e73b8sm5441128pgf.91.2024.01.08.00.57.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-D26A4018-3DA2-44EB-A2FD-8A9E86EC1EC1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Loa Andersson <loa.pi.nu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV0Sbg2pte3g2eLQp0vN9HRxqog_9=9tG7hBisFqxcw7Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2024 16:57:17 +0800
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, MPLS Working Chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, mpls@ietf.org
Message-Id: <CAAA3B8B-0D60-472C-8F3A-8517B451855D@gmail.com>
References: <CABNhwV0Sbg2pte3g2eLQp0vN9HRxqog_9=9tG7hBisFqxcw7Rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21B101)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/7SphEBiXmhDk3r-JlgtOYF_9wSM>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last call on tidying up Expired MPLS WG I-Ds
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 08 Jan 2024 08:57:35 -0000

Gyran,

Inline plz. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Jan 2024, at 15:25, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:



Hi Adrian 

Few thoughts on the low hanging fruit that could be marked dead and possibly not revived.

CR-LDP RFC 3212 to my knowledge was never implemented by any vendors. 

At least Ericsson, Bay and GDC did. And there has been rumors of an early MPLS-TE deployment in Russia. 

As well AFAIK DS TE RFC 4124 did not gain industry traction.  Based on this I think this could be dead and not revived.  

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-ext-01" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-ext-01 
Extensions to RSVP-TE and CR-LDP for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering

I think that is reasonble, maybe we should make RFC 3212 historic also?

DS TE RFC 4124 was published in 2005 and now almost 20 years later I don’t think a need for requirement draft.  As well that DS TE did not gain industry traction.

Requirements for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering

Reasonble. 

RFC 3748 GR LDP is implemented by most vendors and includes DOD.  This could be one to pursue but as it’s been implemented for decades not sure if WG would want to spend time on this work so could be dead and not revived.


Thinking back at the discussion I think ldp-dod was merged into 3478.  But this before we routinely keep track of these things. And also the time before shepherds were appointed.  I think Scott and I took the document through the IESG process. 

I’ve looked for the mail starting WGLC, but so far not found it. 

This could be marked dead as it only has the one possible use case for P2MP TE but did not gain traction. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-upstream-05" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-upstream-05 
MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for RSVP-TE

Reasonable. 


MPLS RFC 3031 is over  20 years old and so I think this can be marked dead and not revived 

Well, at the time we decided to stop working on the mpls-framework, it was a decision among authors, not really by the wg. The reason, as far as I remember was to speed up MPLS architecture and  LDP. The idea to write a comprehensible MPLS framework has been floated several times over the years. So far no traction, but there is some interest. 

My advice would be to not kill this before it has been discussed enough to say we have a wg consensus. 

Anyhow, if we were to decide to write the comprehensible MPLS framework we should probably start with an individual draft. 

/Loa



Kind Regards 

http://www.verizon.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email" width="81" height="18">

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect 

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com

M 301 502-1347




On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 12:39 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
Hi,

The working group has 27 working group I-Ds that have Expired. Some of these
are very old (1998), while others only expired a couple of years ago.

To keep things tidy, we want to mark the ones that have been given up as
"Dead". Dead does not mean that work cannot be re-started, but it does
require that the idea is brought back as an individual draft and carried
through the process as normal.

This email starts a two week last call (ends December 20th) to allow anyone
to request that one of these I-Ds is not made Dead. A reason would be nice,
along with a promise to actually do some work!

The I-Ds can be seen at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mpls/documents/" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mpls/documents/ and
are listed below for convenience.

Cheers,
Adrian (for the chairs)


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-10" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-10
YANG Data Model for MPLS mLDP

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-13" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-13
A YANG Data Model for MPLS Static LSPs

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-rmr-extensions-03" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-rmr-extensions-03
LDP Extensions for RMR

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-multicast-00" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-multicast-00
Resilient MPLS Rings and Multicast

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-mib-05" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-mib-05
Definitions of Managed Objects for the LDP Point-to-Multipoint and
Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt-03" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt-03
Opportunistic Security in MPLS Networks

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements-03" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-require
ments-03
Use Cases and Requirements for MPLS-TP multi-failure protection

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pdutta-mpls-tldp-hello-reduce-04" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pdutta-mpls-tldp-hello-reduce-04
Targeted LDP Hello Reduction
(Note: Was adopted, but nothing happened)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-csf-02" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-csf-02
Indication of Client Failure in MPLS-TP

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-iana-01" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-iana-01
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Considerations Update

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-control-bundle-10" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-control-b
undle-10
Component Link Recording and Resource Control for TE Links

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-upstream-05" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-upstream-05
MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for RSVP-TE

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-02" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-02
Definition of ACH TLV Structure

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-05" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-05
IETF Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
Document Process

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-02" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-02
P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mcast-cv-00" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mcast-cv-00
Connectivity Verification for Multicast Label Switched Paths

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-restart-00" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-restart-00
LDP DoD Graceful Restart

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-optical-uni-01" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-optical-uni-01
LDP Extensions for Optical User Network Interface (O-UNI) Signaling

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-02" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-02
Link Management Protocol (LMP)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-ext-01" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-ext-01
Extensions to RSVP-TE and CR-LDP for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-reqts-00" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-reqts-00
Requirements for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-hdr-comp-00" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-hdr-comp-00
MPLS/IP Header Compression

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-hdr-comp-over-ppp-00" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-hdr-comp-over-ppp-00   
MPLS/IP Header Compression over PPP

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loa-mpls-cap-set-01" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loa-mpls-cap-set-01
MPLS Capability set

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-framework-05" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-framework-05
A Framework for MPLS

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ecn-00" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ecn-00
A Proposal to Incorporate ECN in MPLS

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-00" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-00
Use of Label Switching With RSVP

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email