Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 01 October 2023 14:55 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 D3851C15256B; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 07:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.807
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.807 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=olddog.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C534Epyh1hzt; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 07:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 BBC08C15153D; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 07:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 391EsoCk008124; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 15:54:50 +0100
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B604604B; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 15:54:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3794646048; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 15:54:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 15:54:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (82-69-109-75.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.109.75]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 391EsnWM023839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 1 Oct 2023 15:54:49 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements@ietf.org
References: <2ded21ed-f70c-4361-a6a9-36df027194fd@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <2ded21ed-f70c-4361-a6a9-36df027194fd@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2023 15:54:49 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <067901d9f477$3a10ded0$ae329c70$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQMDjq3T6a+fDHQaflIPenLQniAay63hz/gQ
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 82.69.109.75
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=olddog.co.uk; h=reply-to :from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= 20221128; bh=oyyPeNh7oSal5uAhoqjQzzjI0FAivDFJPFTRzrIxxjc=; b=UUi olAnmvEAFoyRWoVeoMjUymtJZS54CS1PDetW7gJOEUSJioiYa8Qyqkd/IAMmVob1 jTBmd6TJIMOrp2t46GR+517NW2zJRcrDvDuC0feITBlqjdOxJkF3bai08GE3KFo4 a85kjPsH+Fhz7rG+Wy9zNXECIJKhogDsLER4ZqkHEEs1o5LR+NhHmyB5V4hKSOgO r0mngx3t7k4jCMhESQ05AL3FNT/6pAScKdbTJcnnKOLl1sBDjgdH9DGxqyW9x4V5 QqF0QoNMZD8e/WeUm5kxRjqLdXZOgj/9PWwLv6QQEp6njQ/bcmyPd/DnH9KXK0e2 L9m7cEgK139L4zNoEEg==
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-27910.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--29.328-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--29.328-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-27910.000
X-TMASE-Result: 10--29.327500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: jFqw+1pFnMzxIbpQ8BhdbDjNGpWCIvfTskenOhrqdfUPjLUILobt+Glc SvbK7TYdXzs4j9Z3RL/yWNJOB9s8UMHNFKFLnWhz4nbwqqmOd2kh9mNF8ZPJ2FzJs4pAASZIQiM ingSlKoIbmxsa0UGI3kMMDnpqK55Er8SWmHOl/UsX6pCkJZNSOZzipwKe4Je1rQYkvYRXmkwolr 2SzMnPq91wPI2GpLq7Za2XiU15h0JFGQARM2guP+DK6w3xtWKIDC6fYjMn4vzfUZT83lbkECX0w oPAxta6a6QK4zn2jRHDaTKN3KMHpFzhU0/oppo2GqSG/c50XgMIJ2rqTcuYdjSVG/RkdWvZwKZn 0gfq1S8WdkA+xaE9xaa5yX0vLefgOBPzWVQG2Bk4hD0Y/Y/a7x6OXxdRGLx8sMZG2pUzAfOaCU5 7+fe/TeZqmuXTRCb3Pm0CWeDwUHf6nTFnNW6djkfDovALsZ961jd10P+8LE9hR1Y/uhfqyEeTtv gfphKZ340/I41ma+U/cFijo2hsckbmhO8RYZH7WTWEh5N2a9FlH44U2Ru12l/8lGqVstJX7+bRu akMI0Af3OLeRP8iXkTtFqkuRZBHJMSx06sLHfp/n3z4qeww6AGo1vhC/pWjhzldYl+vKilnH7BQ 9pAPCB6rImYsbrgmk3LATLpJH0dQUWKywgPPB3kyd6gTHCmqsMM2Q8vFmPbozDhGeQC9EvyFmNB 9GpfPnJ0c0AWmZwFv+VSF/GUYmqsGdRIFTYvzxkQABNmid9Nj/yGB58mfsNvLtu0+6I59gdToF+ GwXr2x9/xSa9XCNqcZl5rtyKZ1twfj9FnuVCdANB89sV0bJ30tCKdnhB58vqq8s2MNhPAL4KbF8 qbADAzKt8/2P4LV33fj+sMArfMaMUyeC0staEkVAPr0TXS8
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/QFSvqqBmhW6T20qmSDIKQ7VN2ow>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 01 Oct 2023 14:55:05 -0000
Hi, I've been chatting with the authors of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk as it progressed, but I haven't been paying so much attention to this document, so it is good to have the motivation to read it. As previously noted, I think it is a good idea to try to reach WG consensus on these requirements (as described in this document), and a "WGLC" is the right way to do that. I'm not sure that it is really necessary to publish this work as an RFC, and I think we should be careful to make the requirements rigid while we are still working on use cases and solutions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reach agreement, but that we should be flexible to allow the creation of new requirements or the clarification of what we have documented. Publication of an RFC at this stage might be too set in stone. A few comments below that indicate, I think, that this work is not yet stable. Cheers, Adrian == MODERATE == The Abstract says: These requirements are derived from a number of proposals for additions to the MPLS label stack to allow ... This reads like the worst admission of generating requirements that will lead to a specific solution. I'm really hoping that you just happened to write these words, but didn't really mean them. A first improvement would be s/derived/informed/ but there is also some duplication between the two sentences. At the same time, the language is ambiguous. You have "Requirements for MNA" and that could be interpreted as "motivational requirements" (i.e., why bother having MNA?), or "solution requirements" (i.e., what is it we need to do if we want to offer MNA?). I think this is pretty important to set the tone for rest of the document. Working on through to Section 3, it appears that you are talking about setting requirements that will drive solutions. So, probably, change: - The document title to "Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network Actions" - The Abstract to: This document specifies requirements for the development of solutions for MPLS Network Actions (MNA) which affect the forwarding or other processing decisions for MPLS packets made at either transit LSRs or terminating LSRs (i.e., LERs). - Introduction as: OLD This document specifies the requirements for MPLS network actions, as well as the encoding and use of the ancillary data. NEW This document specifies the requirements for solutions that encode MPLS Network Actions and ancillary data that may be needed by the processing of those actions. END --- The backgrounder in Section 1.2 is, for me, a step too far. In particular, three paragraphs: - There have been a number... - These solutions rely on... - A piecemeal solution often... Issues include: 1. "new proposals" will not age well 2. 7665 is the wrong reference to use for what I assume is either meant to be the NSH (8300) or the MPLS-SFC mechanism (8595) 3. "proposal" is not a good representation of an RFC on the standards track 4. While it is true that draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr is a proposal, and with no offence to the authors, it is an individual draft and so not a good reference for a proposal we need to consider 5. We don't need a reference to an expired individual draft that gives a personal overview of some technologies. 6. Does draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases give an overview of use cases or does it describe some of the use cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS Ancillary Data? 7. I think you can move the mention of draft-song-mpls-extension-header to the Acknowledgements section and focus on what you want to say in the main text. 8. Does the standard 8300 NSH-in-MPLS encoding require either the next-protocol indicator or knowledge of the format and size of the header? I thought that NHS-in-MPLS simply reached the end of the tunnel and "discovered" the NHS. 9. That the "node is required to be able to parse the new header" seems completely reasonable if the node is expected to provide the function indicated by the new header. If it cannot parse, it cannot provide, and that is good and proper. We don't for example, expect a node that does not perform Service Function Chaining to be able to parse an NSH. Perhaps there is some confusion between network programming and service function chaining? 10. "A piecemeal solution often assumes" seems a bit like an assertion and, although you give an example, it might be better to just focus on the problem with solutions that make assumptions and the challenges they present. Instead of delivering what feel like homilies, why not just tell us what MNA and AD need, and the issues to be avoided? --- 3. This new protocol work MUST be based on the existing MPLS architecture. This looks like a fundamental requirement. Shouldn't you move it to section 3.1? --- Section 5 is a bit skimpy. You might at least point back to the requirements in the other sections that relate to security. But, since you say, "The mechanisms required by this document introduce new security considerations to MPLS," you might at venture to say what those new considerations are. In particular, does the use of MNA make any difference to the security properties of other MPLS functions? == MINOR == It came as a surprise to me in Section 1.1 that Ancillary Data can be write as well as read. Maybe I haven't been paying attention to the use cases. I suppose this is OK so long as the WG noticed and agreed. --- 3. (the MPLS Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator) Perhaps leave this out at this stage? It feels like a solution-specific thing and doesn't add to the statement about the need for an alert mechanism. Similarly, in 3.2, the title seems to assume the use of sub- stacks. --- 3. It's good that you have numbered the requirements. I think that it would be really helpful if the numbers were unique across the whole document so that they can be easily referred to from other documents. I know you could say "Requirement 7 of Section 3.3" but it would be nicer to say "Requirement 3.7" --- 3.1 Is there any practical distinction between requirements 1, 2, and 3? --- 3.1 4. MNA solutions meeting the requirements set out in this document MUST be able to coexist with and MUST NOT obsolete existing MPLS mechanisms. This seems to capture two distinct requirements. Perhaps you should separate them? But, actually, I think that the second part is a bit confused: the general mechanism should not obsolete anything, but then it cannot, because it is a general mechanism. On the other hand, new RFCs could come along that use the new general mechanism to obsolete old techniques described in RFCs, and that would be OK. --- 3.1 6. The design of any MNA solution SHOULD be such that an LSR is able to efficiently parse the label stack. What does it mean to parse a label stack? Are you saying that an implementation should be able to read ahead in the label stack? Is that consistent with the MPLS architecture? What does "efficient" mean in this context? Why is this a SHOULD? How would a solution designer decide to vary this? --- 3.1 8. Consistent with MPLS best practise, MNA solutions MUST NOT increase the size of the MPLS label stack more than is necessary. You and I might agree on this "best practice" but is it described anywhere that can be referenced? And, is it necessary to mention the best practice, or could you just write the requirement. And what does "more than is necessary" mean in the context of a proposed solution? --- 3.1 10. The design of any MNA solution MUST NOT expose confidential information [RFC6973] [RFC3552] to the LSRs. Neither of the references mentions "confidential information" but they do discuss confidentiality quite a bit. But the problem with the term is the scope of confidentiality. For example, there may be information within the network that is considered confidential by the network operator but which is essential for the function of the network action (OAM would be a good example). So, I think you are talking about information that the user of the MPLS service (a.k.a. LSP) considers confidential. In which case, why not go a step further and prohibit exposing any information about the use of the MPLS service beyond that which is already available by inspection of the payload packet. --- 3.2 seems pretty mixed up. As noted above, maybe the section title has some implication of a solution. Perhaps... 3.2. Requirements for Indicating the Presence of NAIs Requirement 1 is good and belongs in this section. Requirement 2 is a fine requirement, but why is it in this section about how you know whether there are NAIs present? Requirement 3 describes a reasonable requirement, but if we are not to prejudge any solutions, shouldn't it be in Section 3.1? --- 3.3 2. An NAI MUST NOT be delivered to a node that is not capable of processing the indicated network action in a way that is acceptable to the imposing LER. I'm intrigued. I can see how it is highly desirable to stop that from happening, but I am willing to bet that no solution without significant security smarts would be capable to preventing this. So, perhaps: - Swap the order of 2 and 3 in this section - Say that an imposing LER MUST NOT insert an NAI for delivery to a node that has not indicated that it can process it in the way that the imposing LER intends. By the way, we're sure that NAIs are only imposed at LERs and can't be added to the stack at a transit node, for example at an OAM or protection domain boundary? --- 3.3 4. The NAI design MUST support scoping of network actions. Maybe better to put this in terms of "scope" that you define in Section 1.1. Such as: 4. The NAI design MUST support setting the scope of Network Actions. But this is a little ambiguous, especially considering requirements 5 and 6 in the same section. In what way "support"? It could mean that you have to be able to indicate it in the NAI, that there has to be signaling to coordinate between imposing node and processing node, that there has to be a way of configuring the imposing node, or (as noted in requirement 5) that the specification must set the scope. --- 3.3 7. An MNA solution SHOULD support NAIs for both P2P and P2MP paths, but any specific NAI MAY only be supported for one or the other. a. So we are allowing multiple MNA solutions? b. The use of "MAY" is potentially misdirecting. I think you mean 7. An MNA solution SHOULD support NAIs for both P2P and P2MP paths, but a specific NAI MAY be limited by specification to only one or the other. c. In view of the SHOULD and MAY, this requirement needs to indicate how a protocol specifier would choose and what the alternatives are. --- 3.3 8. An MNA solution defining data plane mechanisms for NAIs MUST be consistent across different control plane protocol types. What is protocol type? And in what sense consistent? --- 3.3 11. An MNA solution MUST support the processing of a subset of the NAIs on a packet. This is not really clear. I suspect you mean... 11. An MNA solution MUST NOT require an implementation to process all NAIs present in a packet. --- 3.3 12. NAIs SHOULD only be inserted at LERs, and MAY be processed at LSRs and LERs. Meaning NAIs MAY be inserted at LSRs? Why, when, how? (see 3.3 #13) I suspect s/MAY be processed/can be processed/ --- 3.3 Requirements 13 and 14 13. If a network action needs to insert an NAI with in-stack ancillary data at an LSR on an LSP, then the new network action indicator and any required ancillary data MUST be pushed onto the MPLS label stack. 14. If a network action needs to insert an NAI with below stack ancillary data at an LSR on an LSP, then the MNA solution specification MUST specify how this is achieved in all circumstances and MUST be consistent with {RFC3031}. s/needs/wants/ s/below stack/post-stack/ {RFC3031} is a broken reference So far, I think, while you have defined ISD and PSD, you have not said that the NAI is carried in the label stack. I think you may be doing this here. That is, you appear to be saying: - When an NA has in-stack data, the NAI that indicates this NA must also be present in the label stack. (#13) ...and... - When an NA has post-stack data, the NAI may be carried in any way consistent with RFC 3031. Clarity, please. --- 3.3 Swap the order of 15 and 16 for better sequence. --- 3.3 19. A node removing an NAI MUST NOT leave the MPLS label stack in such a way that downstream nodes are unable to determine the presence of ancillary data remaining in the packet. Well, yes, but that seems to hide so much. You might be saying that the label stack indicates the presence of ancillary data. You might be saying that solutions mustn't screw up the stack, but that is nothing to say. And maybe you are saying something specific something specific about in-stack and post-stack. --- 3.4 I wonder whether you should split this into three sub-sections: 3.4.1 General Requirements For Ancillary Data 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 3.4.2 Requirements for In-Stack Data 1, 2, 4 3.4.3 Requirements for Post-Stack Data 5, 7, 15 Although 4 seems to be a subset of the more general 3. --- 3.4 3. A common preamble for ancillary data MUST be defined so that a node receiving the ancillary data can determine whether to process, ignore, skip over or discard it according to network or local policies. You're sure that needs to be encoded with the AD and not simply specified for the NA in the document that defines it? --- 3.4 6. An MNA solution MUST allow an LER inserting ancillary data to determine that each node that needs to process the ancillary data can read the required distance into the packet at that node, for example [RFC9088]. I see why you reference 9088, but I'm not sure that 9088 would provide exactly this function. So, perhaps s/, for example [RFC9088]./(compare with the mechanism in [RFC9088])./ --- 3.4 7. In order to prevent unnecessary scanning of the packet, care needs to be taken in the location of any post stack ancillary data, for example it SHOULD be located as close to the bottom of the label stack as possible. Why is this only a SHOULD? Are there reasons why you might place it later in the packet? --- 3.4 8. Ancillary data MAY be associated with control or maintenance information for traffic carried by an LSP, and/or it MAY be associated with the user traffic itself. Are there precisely three options allowed? - associated with control or maintenance information for traffic carried by an LSP - associated with the user traffic itself - both of the above Or is a fourth option allowed? - none of the above If "none of the above" is allowed then what are the alternatives? --- 3.4 9. For scoped ancillary data, any MNA solution MUST allow an LER inserting NAIs whose network actions make use of that ancillary data to determine if the NAI and ancillary data will be processed by LSRs within the scope along the path. Such a solution MAY need to determine if LSRs along the path can process a specific type of AD implied by the NAI at the depth in the stack that it will be presented to the LSR. That's a lower case "may" I think. It's just commentary. --- 3.4 10. MNA solution specifications MUST specify if the ancillary data needs to be processed as a part of the immediate forwarding operation and whether packet mis-ordering is allowed to occur as a result of the time taken to process the ancillary data. Ed. We think this applies to both NAs and ancillary data and should be generalised. Need to resolve this Editor comment. --- 3.4 11. A solution MUST be provided to verify the authenticity of ancillary data processed to LSRs [RFC3552]. "Authenticity" is only mentioned once in 3552. "Authentication" is mentioned a lot, but it is mainly about user identity. I think you may be talking about "Data Integrity"? --- 3.4 12. The design of the ancillary data MUST NOT expose confidential information [RFC6973] [RFC3552] to the LSRs. See my comment about 3.1 #10 --- 3.4 13. A mechanism MUST exist to notify an egress LER of the presence of ancillary data so that it can dispose of it appropriately. Wouldn't know this from the definition of the NA? --- 3.4 14. An egress LER MUST NOT forward a packet with ancillary data to a node that is not expecting the ancillary data to be present. This seems to break backward compatibility. That is, it says you cannot send any packet containing AD to any legacy node even for forwarding. --- Section 7 3031, 3032, 5331, 8126 are used in a normative way in the document == TRIVIAL NITS == Please decide on the capitalisation of "ancillary data" and make it consistent in the document. Ditto "network action." Same issue with "in-stack" and "post-stack" but also check the hyphens. --- In 1.2, the reference to draft-bryant-mpls-dev-primer is, perhaps, problematic. The draft is probably fine, but it has been expired for almost a year. Perhaps the whole sentence isn't really needed. Oh, it appears twice. -- 3. This document specifies requirements of MPLS Network Action (MNA) Indicators (NAIs), and the associated Ancillary Data - This is not the first use of NAI so you don't need to spell it out - Previous statements about what this document does have not mentioned the NAI And later in the section: The purpose of this document is to identify the toolkit and any new protocol work that is required. Which seems like a new purpose of the document not discussed in the Abstraction and Introduction. -----Original Message----- From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Loa Andersson Sent: 18 September 2023 21:34 To: mpls@ietf.org Subject: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements Working Group, This is to initiate a two week working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-07. Please send your comments to the MPLS WG mailing list (mpls@ietf.org). There are no IPR disclosures against this document. All the authors (no contributors on this document) have stated on the working group mailing list that they are not aware of any IPRs that relates to this document. This working group last call ends October 4, 2023. /Loa for the MPLS wg chairs -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@gmail.com Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Weiqiang Cheng
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [EXTERNAL] Re: MPLS Working Group Last… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] [EXTERNAL] MPLS Working Group Last Cal… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Andrew Alston
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Tony Li
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Andrew Alston
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Tarek Saad
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Adrian Farrel
- [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call on dr… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call o… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Tony Li
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Tony Li
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-… Matthew Bocci (Nokia)