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

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

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.  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
Extensions to RSVP-TE and CR-LDP for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering

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.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-reqts-00
Requirements for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering

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.


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-restart-00
LDP DoD Graceful Restart


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
MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for RSVP-TE

MPLS RFC 3031 is over  20 years old and so I think this can be marked dead
and not revived
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-framework-05
A Framework for MPLS


Kind Regards

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*



*M 301 502-1347*



On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 12:39 PM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> 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/
> and
> are listed below for convenience.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian (for the chairs)
>
>
> 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
> A YANG Data Model for MPLS Static LSPs
>
> 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
> Resilient MPLS Rings and Multicast
>
> 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
> Opportunistic Security in MPLS Networks
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-require
> ments-03
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements-03>
> Use Cases and Requirements for MPLS-TP multi-failure protection
>
> 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
> Indication of Client Failure in MPLS-TP
>
> 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-b
> undle-10
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-control-bundle-10>
> Component Link Recording and Resource Control for TE Links
>
> 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
> Definition of ACH TLV Structure
>
> 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
> P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels
>
> 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
> LDP DoD Graceful Restart
>
> 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
> Link Management Protocol (LMP)
>
> 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
> Requirements for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
>
> 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
> MPLS/IP Header Compression over PPP
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loa-mpls-cap-set-01
> MPLS Capability set
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-framework-05
> A Framework for MPLS
>
> 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
> Use of Label Switching With RSVP
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>