[mpls] Confusion over my comments in MPLS WG meeting

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 19 July 2016 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 5852512D97F for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gW_ZXfLooMLt for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CCB512DE3E for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6JFInX4020285 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:18:49 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (jplon-nat14.juniper.net [193.110.55.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6JFIg7J020270 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:18:48 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <mpls@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:18:40 +0100
Message-ID: <009501d1e1d0$db05e9a0$9111bce0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdHh0MlKSgUiWK02Q262Vzh0tz6D+Q==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22462.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.417-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.417-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: u0JMc/t7MjZR6DT7jy4uvdOdGz1/8ORmz/QY4pbyQ2nSYAzZ6KmqWve9 fJVMajmONJnt9TW/xwb1ULoBG8LHrl2kuSHmn3uDw69AIwXJn0Y0AKed0u9fB/gnJH5vm2+gcvL IQwkShE4diTaKYs6ZUYODlzj9GzbRFDysHLls3CQIVoCLGbl5T/TWKs29qDlrACF5TKaad18wNg yB5vK4X/OXMYDgodY8cIzsvT6ldPT/3pF4wGrfyN35+5/2RxqmIOd58Mrid/6bKItl61J/ycnjL TA/UDoAxpQ77C1A1tqOhzOa6g8KrcqezgNQopn1cylln4E0yDQN7vtiUdrXnLSbo2LyZ5hO7X5c yPReqbY=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/J0z3mwv2PBwkkF9JuDBQKkFjZ0I>
Subject: [mpls] Confusion over my comments in MPLS WG meeting
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:35:29 -0000

Hi,

During our discussion of draft-shen-mpls-egress-protection-framework-02 I made
some comments at the mic.

The Etherpad records me as saying 
Adrian - Lets not hang up on word framework.

...and that was pretty much my message.

It felt to me that we were obsessing about the precise interpretation of the
document title rather than what it actually achieves. It is clear (to me) that
the document could equally have a title like "framework for the use of MPLS to
achieve foo" or a "framework to achieve foo in an MPLS network" and that that
would be obviously an MPLS document. On the other hand (and historically) a
framework is not an architecture: architectures are usually
solution-independent; frameworks are often descriptions of how to achieve
something from a number of building blocks. But if the word "framework" gets in
the way, simply use a different word.

In the meeting I then rambled into my beard wondering what would be the point of
an MPLS working group if we are not able to work on this document that I feel is
clearly an MPLS document (IRRC Hannes and Kireeti also considered this to be an
MPLS document). Someone may have misheard me as saying "close down MPLS".
Although Ross' departure might make this a fitting option, it was not what I was
saying.

I think George's point was that if someone thinks that there is value in a
generic (not limited to MPLS) framework, then they are welcome to write one, and
RTGWG would be a good venue.

Adrian