Re: [mpls] Formal poll to abandon draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control

Adrian,

I understand why we will have pull the draft back from the IESG, but
I wonder why it is necessary to kick it out of the WG, why not just let
it expire as a wg draft and have sit there if we find people that want
to work on it?

/Loa

> I will be sad as well, but no one has expressed any interest in the
> control plane work only in unblocking the other SFL drafts.
>
> Interestingly the last time this was on the MPLS agenda people asked for
> control planes for LDP and RSVP-TE, but no one offered to so any work on
> this.
>
> In the intervening years SDN has become more prevalent and I suggest that
> anyone wanting to deploy a facility that this simple control plane would
> address would probably use SDN to manage the SFLs.
>
> If there is someone that wants to put this in a network and there is at
> least one other person interested in working through how it works in
> detail then I would be prepared to take this to completion, but in the
> absence of both such commitments I think it should go back to the WG and
> presumably eventually expire.
>
> - Stewart
>
>
>> On 13 Mar 2024, at 04:20, loa@pi.nu wrote:
>>
>> Adrian,
>>
>> You have correctly interpreted my feelings, I think it is sad that we
>> drop the document.
>>
>> Since there seems to be no support for continuing the work, I have to
>> accept
>> that the document is dropped.
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> As you will have seen, there has been some discussion on the list about
>>> the
>>> work still needed to complete draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control and a bug in
>>> the
>>> spec that Stewart has discovered.
>>>
>>> I asked on the list (2024-02-26) whether anyone is still interested in
>>> this
>>> work
>>> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/eW8SpBzEAZRlsiTPhPbSd3DnrPQ/)
>>> I repeated the question (2024-03-04)
>>> Stewart rephrased my questions (2024-03-04) to ask if anyone has
>>> implemented
>>> or deployed, or has plans to implement or deploy
>>> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/i4IC05iAheiYlKGIFq-8iu7nhjg/)
>>>
>>> The only response has been from Loa, suggesting that if someone is
>>> willing
>>> to do the work then he would support them, and that (my interpretation)
>>> he
>>> would be sad to see the document dropped.
>>>
>>> So, this email is a formal call for consensus.
>>>
>>> The chairs propose to pull the document back from the AD and drop it
>>> from
>>> the working group. This would allow anyone to pick the document up
>>> again
>>> in
>>> the future, but it would need to go back through the working group
>>> adoption
>>> process.
>>>
>>> Please speak up if you are opposed to this action. In particular,
>>> please
>>> state why you are opposed (e.g., you know something about
>>> implementation/deployment) and how you propose that the document should
>>> move
>>> forward (i.e., who would do what work).
>>>
>>> In the absence of voices opposed to this approach, the chairs will take
>>> the
>>> action.
>>>
>>> This call ends on Tuesday 19th March 2024 at 17.00 UTC (i.e., after the
>>> MPLS
>>> session at IETF-119).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Adrian (on behalf of the MPLS WG chairs)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>