Re: [mpls] Formal poll to abandon draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control

[[e-mail]]

Adrian,

I guess that this is a decision that may be taken by the chairs,
so I rest my case.

/Loa



>                    Hi,                       I believe that if we were to
> poll the WG for adoption now, it would fail. There are,
> as I see it, two people willing to review the work (you
> and Stewart) but no one who will edit and no one who
> wants the solution for implementation or deployment.
>                    For me, that means that this should
> not be a working group document. It should drop back to
> individual, anf if someone gets excited in the future,
> they can pick it up and ask for readoption.
>           This keeps it very clear to the whole
> community what the status is.                       A
>               On 14/03/2024 05:22 CET [e-mail] wrote:
>                                           Adrian,
>                       I understand why we will have
> pull the draft back from the IESG, but              I
> wonder why it is necessary to kick it out of the WG,
> why not just let              it expire as a wg draft
> and have sit there if we find people that want
>     to work on it?                             /Loa
>                                               I will be
> sad as well, but no one has expressed any interest in
> the                 control plane work only in
> unblocking the other SFL drafts.
>    Interestingly the last time this was on the MPLS
> agenda people asked for                 control planes
> for LDP and RSVP-TE, but no one offered to so any work
> on                 this.                           In
> the intervening years SDN has become more prevalent and
> I suggest that                 anyone wanting to deploy
> a facility that this simple control plane would
>         address would probably use SDN to manage the
> SFLs.                           If there is someone
> that wants to put this in a network and there is at
>             least one other person interested in
> working through how it works in                 detail
> then I would be prepared to take this to completion,
> but in the                 absence of both such
> commitments I think it should go back to the WG and
>             presumably eventually expire.
>             - Stewart                    >
> >> On 13 Mar 2024, at 04:20, [e-mail] wrote:
>    >>              >> Adrian,              >>
>    >> You have correctly interpreted my feelings, I
> think it is sad that we              >> drop the
> document.              >>              >> Since there
> seems to be no support for continuing the work, I have
> to              >> accept              >> that the
> document is dropped.              >>              >>
> /Loa              >>              >>> All,
> >>>              >>> As you will have seen, there has
> been some discussion on the list about              >>>
> the              >>> work still needed to complete
> draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control and a bug in
> >>> the              >>> spec that Stewart has
> discovered.              >>>              >>> I asked
> on the list (2024-02-26) whether anyone is still
> interested in              >>> this              >>>
> work              >>>
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/eW8SpBzEAZRlsiTPhPbSd3DnrPQ/)
>              >>> I repeated the question (2024-03-04)
>            >>> Stewart rephrased my questions
> (2024-03-04) to ask if anyone has              >>>
> implemented              >>> or deployed, or has plans
> to implement or deploy              >>>
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/i4IC05iAheiYlKGIFq-8iu7nhjg/)
>              >>>              >>> The only response has
> been from Loa, suggesting that if someone is
>   >>> willing              >>> to do the work then he
> would support them, and that (my interpretation)
>       >>> he              >>> would be sad to see the
> document dropped.              >>>              >>> So,
> this email is a formal call for consensus.
> >>>              >>> The chairs propose to pull the
> document back from the AD and drop it              >>>
> from              >>> the working group. This would
> allow anyone to pick the document up              >>>
> again              >>> in              >>> the future,
> but it would need to go back through the working group
>             >>> adoption              >>> process.
>         >>>              >>> Please speak up if you are
> opposed to this action. In particular,              >>>
> please              >>> state why you are opposed
> (e.g., you know something about              >>>
> implementation/deployment) and how you propose that the
> document should              >>> move              >>>
> forward (i.e., who would do what work).
> >>>              >>> In the absence of voices opposed
> to this approach, the chairs will take              >>>
> the              >>> action.              >>>
>    >>> This call ends on Tuesday 19th March 2024 at
> 17.00 UTC (i.e., after the              >>> MPLS
>       >>> session at IETF-119).              >>>
>       >>> Thanks,              >>> Adrian (on behalf of
> the MPLS WG chairs)              >>>              >>>
> _______________________________________________
>      >>> mpls mailing list              >>>
> [e-mail]              >>>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >>>              >>              >>              >>
> _______________________________________________
>      >> mpls mailing list              >> [e-mail]
>              >>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >              >