Re: [mpls] MPLS WG IETF-101 Minutes
" 徐小虎(义先) " <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com> Thu, 12 April 2018 00:43 UTC
Return-Path: <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.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 74FD812D87C; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alibaba-inc.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 d7fxG1wpUZmP; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out0-151.mail.aliyun.com (out0-151.mail.aliyun.com [140.205.0.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFD781205D3; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alibaba-inc.com; s=default; t=1523493774; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=YKcHvT5vfC32oUfTwzAguD1oB9tuJW247SHvh5sMnkI=; b=XMvGlKZJFFaLOrKAs+DxbZ0UU+nZMItoYo8lWAoNQjXYcAwW69f4Of6B6eUUHNIIVq8buy8IkKXhA44HzlZMRMLAoaPJOidS1Jw/EbpNYJKYt+dPDRxC868gVnHx+jDJu5TBx8WvtDkfWPv0kKXJ6RIRXBDwyMB+xZdfWScSAh0=
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS; BC=-1|-1; BR=01201311R141e4; CH=green; FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e02c03303; MF=xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com; NM=1; PH=DW; RN=2; SR=0; TI=W4_5223772_v5ForWebDing_0A930F78_1523492962014_o7001c933i;
Received: from WS-web (xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com[W4_5223772_v5ForWebDing_0A930F78_1523492962014_o7001c933i]) by e01l07381.eu6 at Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:42:52 +0800
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:42:52 +0800
From: "徐小虎(义先)" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
To: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Reply-To: "徐小虎(义先)" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
Message-ID: <e7e227e8-1db4-47c7-8bd9-843274b934a0.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
X-Mailer: [Alimail-Mailagent revision 948139][W4_5223772][v5ForWebDing][Chrome]
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <A1950D57-A4CC-40DF-B601-F0B81FC43E48@cisco.com>, <44cef6f1-64b7-dc09-00c1-3ced768ac2f2@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <44cef6f1-64b7-dc09-00c1-3ced768ac2f2@pi.nu>
x-aliyun-mail-creator: W4_5223772_v5ForWebDing_M3LTW96aWxsYS81LjAgKE1hY2ludG9zaDsgSW50ZWwgTWFjIE9TIFggMTBfMTJfNikgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNTM3LjM2IChLSFRNTCwgbGlrZSBHZWNrbykgQ2hyb21lLzY1LjAuMzMyNS4xODEgU2FmYXJpLzUzNy4zNg==vN
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=ALIBOUNDARY_10028_57398940_5aceab8c_605586"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/CcEof1ao1Pi_IycT6Axor41yDys>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS WG IETF-101 Minutes
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 12 Apr 2018 00:43:00 -0000
Hi all, I noticed that there are some mistakes in the following minutes. I had never said something like "should the 2 draft be combined". Instead, I said something like "since this draft and our SR-based SFC draft are proposing to leverage MPLS to achieve SFC, should both drafts waits for WG recharter within MPLS and SPRING WGs respectively before starting WG adoption?''. In addition, I strongly requested the co-authors of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc to stopping the behavior of copying the idea of the existing draft by "using a different name for the same thing". Such copying behavior would seriously damage the fairness and justice of the IETF culture and would set a very bad precedent in the IETF. 3. draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Stewart Bryant Xiaohu: this draft and ours are leverage MPLS - should the 2 draft be combined? Stewart: it's up to the chairs of both WGs. You're welcome to work with us on this, but up to chairs and ADs Geoerge: resistant for waiting for things to rechart.. Rather progress the work and then discuss the possiblity of combine Loa: no need for MPLS to recharter to do this work.. Other WG may need. Himanshu: there's an overlap, it does not matter where docs progress, but this should be discussed/resolved here Best regards,Xiaohu ------------------------------------------------------------------Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>2018年4月12日(星期四) 02:27mpls <mpls@ietf.org>Re: [mpls] MPLS WG IETF-101 Minutes Working Group, If you had a presentation or made comments at the mike, please review the minutes. /Loa On 2018-04-09 17:27, Tarek Saad (tsaad) wrote: > Hi, > > We have posted a draft the minutes at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-101-mpls/ > > Let me know if there are any corrections. > > Regards, > > Tarek and chairs > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] MPLS WG IETF-101 Minutes Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS WG IETF-101 Minutes Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] MPLS WG IETF-101 Minutes 徐小虎(义先)