Re: [mpls] [spring] should draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label be published as a RFC on the standards track?

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Be careful.

There is text in the draft that talks about ECMP behaviour in different 
parts of the path, which implies an expectation that the EL is the sole 
source of entropy. If we make this ST then we will be implicitly 
standardizing that behaviour. Now as it happens, I thing we need to 
update the EL behaviour to make it the sole source of entropy, because 
that solves a number of problems, particularly in network 
instrumentation, but we need to do that explicitly and not as an 
artefact of this draft.

So the way I see it, either this draft is published as informational, or 
it is published as ST without any text that implies that the EL is the 
sole source of entropy, or we harden the EL behaviour (which I think we 
need to do) and this draft is published with a normative reference to an 
RFC that specifies the stricter EL behaviour.

- Stewart


On 02/05/2018 14:01, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Loa,
>
> There’s plenty of RFC 2119 language in the draft, so I support making 
> this standards track.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:44 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Working Group,
>
>     February 1st the MPLS working Group requested that draft-ietf-mpls-
>     spring-entropy-label should be published as an Informational RFC.
>
>     During the RTG Directorate and AD reviews the question whether the
>     document should instead be published as a RFC on the Standards Track
>     has been raised.
>
>     The decision to make the document Informational was taken "a long time
>     ago", based on discussions between the authors and involving the
>     document shepherd, on the wg mailing list. At that point it we were
>     convinced that the document should be progressed as an Informational
>     document.
>
>     It turns out that there has been such changes to the document that we
>     now would like to request input from the working group if we
>     should make
>     the document a Standards Track RFC.
>
>     Daniele's RTG Directorate review can be found at at:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-08-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2018-02-21/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-08-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2018-02-21/>
>
>     All the issues, with the exception whether it should be Informational
>     or Standards track, has been resolved as part AD review.
>
>     If the document is progressed as a Standard Tracks document then we
>     also need to answer the question whether this is an update RFC 6790.
>
>     This mail starts a one week poll (ending May 9) to see if we have
>     support to make the document a Standards Track document. If you
>     support
>     placing it on the Standards Track also consider if it is an update to
>     RFC 6790.
>
>     Please send your comments to the MPLS wg mailing list (
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ).
>
>     /Loa
>     for the mpls wf co-chairs
>
>     PS
>
>     I'm copying the spring working group on this mail.
>     -- 
>
>
>     Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Senior MPLS Expert
>     Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     mpls mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring