Re: [mpls] Second call: A question about draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control

Hi Adrian,

I read the original mail :), but I did not respond :(.

The reason is that I did not understand the implications of the protocol
fix and the scoping alternatives.

Regardless of which alternative we choose, we will have the document back
to the working group for fixing and a new WGLC, right? At least the
working group needs to have a chance to say what it thinks about the fix.

That scenario is right and the protocol fix is reasonably easy, I think
that the first alternative is the most attractive.

/Loa

>(> Hi,
>
> Resending this because I am hearing silence and that could mean:
> - no one cares
> - no one read the original email
>
> A
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 26 February 2024 17:36
> To: 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control.all@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] A question about draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control
>
> Hi WG,
>
> While talking about draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl and
> draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control with Stewart, and resulting from SEC ART
> review
> of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control by Charlie Kaufman, we discovered that
> there
> is a small hole in the control protocol arising in MP2P LSPs when one of
> the
> senders crashes and restarts.
>
> There are two possible approaches to solving this:
> 1. introduce a protocol fix
> 2. scope the utility of the control protocol draft to p2p and p2mp only
>
> But, before going there, we are interested to know whether anyone cares
> about this control protocol. Has anyone implemented it? Does anyone plan
> to
> implement it?
>
> Thanks for any answers.
>
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>