Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Sri,

I certainly want to hear from the working group, my co-chairs and
the authors on this, before we make the call on this issue.

I tend to think that we should have the first individual draft on
the MPLS fabric architecture available before starting the the adoption
poll and the MPLS fabric architecture as a wg doc before going to
working group last call.

Thoughts? Anyone?

/Loa

On 2015-09-15 18:17, Sriganesh Kini wrote:
> Loa,
>
> I am fine with the resolutions in -04 except for one, for which I would
> like the guidance of the WG chairs. As stated in the abstract, this
> draft is providing a solution as a component of the MPLS Fabric
> architecture which will be defined in the yet to be published draft
> [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC]. Shouldn't the order of WG acceptance be architecture
> first and then specific solutions?
>
> Thanks
> Sri
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Lucy, Kamran, Sri and Mustapha
>
>     Can each of you confirm to me that your MPLS-RT review comments has been
>     satisfactorily addressed.
>
>     I will start the working group adoption poll as soon as I have
>     your¨resonses,
>
>     /Loa
>
>     On 2015-09-08 21:25, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
>
>         Hi All,
>
>         Thanks all again for your comments.
>
>         I've just posted a new version incorporating all your feedback.
>         There
>         is new text to clarify some points, and the text on unsolicited
>         ARP and
>         Async operation have been merged.  The one thing left to do is
>         to write
>         the MPLS Fabric document -- work has started here.
>
>         Kireeti.
>
>         On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Sriganesh Kini
>         <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>
>              Hello,
>
>              This is the MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp -
>
>              The document is coherent.
>
>              Regarding whether it is useful (i.e., is it likely to be
>         actually
>              useful in operational networks), the yet to do be defined
>         reference
>              [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC] would be needed before commenting on it.
>         Also if
>              any host NIC vendors can chime in or any evidence of host
>         operating
>              systems that plan to support this is present, it will help
>         to answer
>              this question. I don't see any technical reason why MPLS
>         shouldn't
>              be useful in DC networks.
>
>              The document is technically sound for most parts, but as sec 4
>              points out there are a number of issues still left. I would
>         add a
>              couple issues -
>                       1.      The restarts should address control-plane
>         restart
>              as well. Though there is no session between server and
>         client, the
>              action (if any) to be performed when control-plane restarts
>         should
>              be specified.

>                       2.      If a LSR (L-ARP server) goes down, then there
>              should be a proposed resiliency mechanism (e.g. using BFD).

>
>              Other comments:
>                       1.      It would be very useful to list the
>         use-cases where
>              a host wants to participate in the fabric through a simpler
>              mechanism than RSVP-TE UNI. Additionally, even though label
>              distribution itself may become simpler using ARP, doesn't
>         the host
>              have to do other MPLS OAM functionality? Some discussion of
>         this
>              topic is needed.

>                       2.      Section 3.4 "... presence of a complex
>              topology...". Which topology is this referring to ? Is it the
>              underlying ethernet network topology ? Pls state it
>         explicitly and
>              also why it would cause a problem to LARP.

>
>              Nits:
>                       1.      Section 1, page 1 s/Centre/Center

>                       2.      The node 'T' should be shown in the MPLS
>         Fabric of
>              Fig 1.

>                       3.      Missing reference [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC]

>                       4.      Sec 3.4 "Seamless MPLS" reference is missing.

>
>              Since [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC] seems to the primary driver for this
>              document, it would be better to consider this for a WG document
>              after that document is published.
>
>              - Sri
>              ________________________________________
>              From: Loa Andersson [[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
>              Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2015 9:18 AM
>              To: Lucy yong; Kamran Raza (skraza); Sriganesh Kini; Aissaoui,
>              Mustapha (Mustapha);
>         [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>              <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>              Subject: MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp
>
>              Lucy, Kamran, Sri and Mustapha;
>
>              You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for
>         draft-kompella-mpls-larp.
>
>              Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that
>         you can know
>              that this review is going on. However, please do not review
>         your own
>              document.
>
>              Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent,
>         is it
>              useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in
>         operational networks),
>              and is the document technically sound?
>
>              We are interested in knowing whether the document is ready
>         to be
>              considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have to be
>         perfect at this
>              point, but should be a good start).
>
>              Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG
>         co-chairs and WG
>              secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If
>         necessary, comments
>              may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
>
>              If you have technical comments you should try to be
>         explicit about what
>              needs to be resolved before adopting it as a working group
>         document, and
>              what can wait until the document is a working group
>         document and the
>              working group has the revision control.
>
>              Are you able to review this draft by 14, 2015? Please
>         respond in a
>              timely fashion.
>
>              Thanks, Loa
>              (as MPLS WG chair)
>              --
>
>
>              Loa Andersson                        email:
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>              <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>              Senior MPLS Expert [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>              Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>         64 <tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064>
>              <tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064>
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         Kireeti
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     mpls mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>