Re: [mpls] MPLS wg charter update

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:00 AM

Carlos,

thanks for comments! My personal response too them would be:

1. Work items vs. focus areas.
    Not being a native English speaker I would need a better definition
    of the terms, tentatively I'd say that either would work for me,
    maybe say "work items and focus areas" if that aligns with how
    the  terms are defined.

<tp>
Loa

I see focus areas as vague and woolly, like soft-focus only different,
useful for management speak that can later be redefined to mean
something different if the need arises:-)

Work items I would see as more specific, having an outcome that is
defined and can be measured eg was an I-D delivered to the IESG by March
2010?

Of the items listed, I think that most are work items but perhaps not

•    Maintain existing MPLS requirements, mechanisms, and protocols,
        in coordination with other working groups, e.g. CCAMP, PWE3
        and OPSAWG working groups.
•    Evolve key MPLS protocols, including LDP, tLDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE
        and LSP Ping to meet new requirements.

I would prefer those at the end, not the front, which is where I think
that catch-alls belong; and I would make them more action-oriented, such
as

•    Identify new requirements in key MPLS protocols, including but not
limited to LDP, tLDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE and LSP Ping, and define solutions
to meet them

Tom Petch
</tp>


2. IPv6 gap analysis
    I believe that the IPv6 gap analysis is part of "necessary
    extensions ... for dual stack and IPv6 only"
    The gap analysis will show up as a milestone when we accept
    an ID on that topic as a wg group document.

/Loa

On 2013-05-12 01:24, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> Hi Loa,
>
> Please find two very small questions/comments inline.
>
> Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
> Excuze typofraphicak errows
>
> On May 11, 2013, at 4:43 AM, "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Working Group,
>>
>> The working group chairs have discussed an MPLS wg charter update
>> for sometime.
>>
>> We have converged on the text below and while we understand that
>> it still not "perfect" (for some value of perfect) we believe that
>> it is good enough to serve as a basis for a working group discussion
>> of our charter.
>>
>> Please note that this is not a "re-charter", but a normal charter
update
>> (maintenance) that should take place when adopting new work items or
>> finalizing others. The only "issue" is that we have not maintained
the
>> charter to the degree we should have during the last years when the
>> work load has been quite heavy.
>>
>> Please view the text below as a starting point for an update of our
>> charter and send your comments to [e-mail]. We would like to see
>> your comments before June 7th, 2013.
>>
>> -------------------- Proposed new charter
text -------------------------
>>
>>
>> Description of Working Group
>>
>> The MPLS working group is responsible for standardizing technology
>> for label switching and for the implementation of label-switched
>> paths over packet based link-level technologies.
>>
>> The responsibility includes procedures and protocols for the
>> distribution of labels between Label Switching Routers (LSRs),
>> MPLS packet encapsulation, and for Operation, Administration, and
>> Maintenance (OAM) (including the necessary management objects
>> expressed as MIB modules or using other techniques).
>>
>> The current WG work items are:
>>
>
> The text above looks good. A nit: are these "work items" or "focus
areas"?
>
>> •    Maintain existing MPLS requirements, mechanisms, and protocols,
>>         in coordination with other working groups, e.g. CCAMP, PWE3
>>         and OPSAWG working groups.
>> •    Evolve key MPLS protocols, including LDP, tLDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE
>>         and LSP Ping to meet new requirements.
>> •    Define an overall OAM framework for topology-driven, traffic
>>         engineered, and transport profile MPLS applications.
>> •    Determine MPLS-specific aspects of traffic engineering for
>>         multi-areas/multi-AS in cooperation with the CCAMP WG
>> •    Define necessary extensions for MPLS key protocols for
>>         dual-stack and IPv6 only networks
>
> In addition to defining extensions, could we add also a "gap analysis"
of the IPv6 (dual stack and IPv6 only) state for MPLS key protocols and
procedures?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carlos.
>
>> •    Coordinate with the CCAMP working group on the extensions of
>>         MPLS and GMPLS protocols
>> •    Document current implementation practices for MPLS load sharing.
>> •    Document mechanisms for securing MPLS networks in coordination
>>         with the KARP working group.
>> •    Document mechanisms for adding multi-topology support to
>>         existing MPLS protocols.
>> •    Document use cases for MPLS protocols.
>>
>> -------------------------- end proposed text ------------------------
>>
>> Loa
>> (for the wg chairs)