IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Fri, 05 March 2021 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 56D833A0ADD; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:51:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 7ASI3xrStbVf; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:51:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com (mail-wr1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D63153A0AD4; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:51:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id e10so3321308wro.12; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 11:51:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=K+Rs6OHndxlgaDFtW9ROz6n0hUqgrkM5WnM88q1lIQg=; b=Mt58oZkwr1ifUur+Z8g1QhpJPBwZXFak1IW7GdNBVbDGPWTk6iqdOaOc0EdRLfnshg Jx8ItEvmaouiQMtuZ0ppC7lovv+t2YeTXdqFEG5gv/hprhhIfvAVbTKneQa+j4JzY3wI t3YxEzdotpwoVWqFC4AVIdVP/XTee1+Lf2Pd0cN1VpheUl3LaxzXPnmkmA8tU/yD2guO xizTO3SU61TJ/gEWp5ZCArHU/AIOGpnTPK8ojk+SpD5hZre/jZ8CJ4P9Uex5QNlBrC3r L0KUB/UEZNZu+fjEX6QPxX5F08erQzDv8SJnncKOF0tbY7ZdYeahd5NWkwxerm+dKwHl VTLw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=K+Rs6OHndxlgaDFtW9ROz6n0hUqgrkM5WnM88q1lIQg=; b=W/KfdK/LzbgZPzIfgAjXXJhlV/6Gkbl8AVI5oRDdaFqdh3OGT+DNNjXB17HZ43P6ca tU+5YvvA7a1HCK0jkPqyVRShjhBVBATUFXEyjqxqmyRzH+ONFCuHErnMYM+mOAUVFYWN y6F6/8vJ4z0PznIaLNBTEh/DehrDUKX8W93mLnoCqyFPQXhT+bHYo7zj/dyEG/gjYnBL WU5APmDjijIK62Agicf8J68hYopa71Tc3u4YyJ7zMWEk9juviyPB9anP7/KTTNYyS2LX sJlS4OMsVdpgKOSMBDzZ6LAnNLXQDeCJlPA/UmTBSsCSnzaFjECQUCmBCDimRJgPs3JE w53g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533shj8PsKy5BHdIMJ8f1nhFSR9rqcvdEB8uOYLZ2FhAPtQ/JLmG T3n0Q5+EaVtS/IMCuRCdiNc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxHXatKsR7Yh1tCM6YI9Em31taM6KDnehR1lLL+6GcQsH0Pv31je9qmcR+vyiMY0Fza35eZ+w==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f04e:: with SMTP id t14mr11203808wro.100.1614973878369; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 11:51:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.8.102] ([85.255.237.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u4sm6078700wrm.24.2021.03.05.11.51.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Mar 2021 11:51:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <B5B35F4E-DC88-4191-84DF-13781AF09F2C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FF46FD30-EC3B-4824-A943-C0E2369A6E91"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:51:17 +0000
In-Reply-To: <FCCFC6CB-05B0-4870-B3FC-27CD0FAA2597@gmail.com>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl@ietf.org
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
References: <161424445907.24739.3898672250104883371@ietfa.amsl.com> <FCCFC6CB-05B0-4870-B3FC-27CD0FAA2597@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/MOlHf4kjISyzZFuO_eNaYQFiM0Q>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:51:21 -0000


> On 5 Mar 2021, at 19:29, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ben
> 
>> 
>> Section 16
>> 
>> If we are deferring to draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control for the contents of
>> some protocol message fields, I can't see how it's anything other than a
>> normative reference.
>> 
> 
> SB> draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control is only one of the control protocols that some claim we need (though it is the only one that I propose to write). My concern was that if I made it normative this would stall on that text, and yet the design is valid without any control protocol as it could be controlled by an SDN controller. Indeed I suspect that SDN controllers are now so popular compared to when I started this that it will be the overwhelming deployment model.
> 

Actually I had a couple of requests to move this to normative.

On reflection you are correct so I have moved it.

The control draft is ST so it will simply mean that this stays in the editors queue for a while longer.

Best regards

Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email