Return-Path: X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B139F126FB3; Wed, 2 May 2018 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zgmvjQlix3oa; Wed, 2 May 2018 06:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr0-x22e.google.com (mail-wr0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4BBC126D85; Wed, 2 May 2018 06:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id o4-v6so14117075wrm.0; Wed, 02 May 2018 06:51:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=3rm2B/EpVAndxLZ8z5NfYkw58Txmc8Yicovh23XOgsE=; b=AWZIwZ021IM6L6dVCdNeEsS1JB9AFzaQw7T6ChqAIBjKAIoyrwtdtzVOXoDPA2/iOk UjGNc9Yjk0B/aUwDQhiTmcDCjeEagXCRgqQD3kqcPFPL1a/lmT9qmjFkSaxBdzEBwlJ8 7Awbaywdcf0TJEeFuY/dsbolryoNWWg56U3G82/txyDgzhGnwJh7KX68JKPzRSBjJhDy 37EhXH7udkf17A2Qu7lq8ZmsUUvKtSrYSlv+7IwL7VHZ6tqG+yDF8Vn8Y0d7Kyx4u9F6 Q7x0W7q8FpOBawIGnckrcfLqGOpd0I6KT1kIZmn+ns1jtHF3xWid+uMSOROMxvI883ud VNlQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=3rm2B/EpVAndxLZ8z5NfYkw58Txmc8Yicovh23XOgsE=; b=HtzUQqDpcHUmuNfEagXe6Vrg+thfXCi4ZE8huLV6V/IeoCOCERJkVJFVK4zdssBUXM Zm+OWXi+/2LYWQWaZgzRwNOoMwyYbO8pVVFiXo5cPctvEZ32rrUTZ+pLIKs3Dn5eCnc9 FVgRMMWxVr6vzn4wzUlFWfHrUh5x+nNdv1pZRn+aJ1qzVqNPf1Jevg18W0FPkVvLTK72 82ZkEKAqtGc0huKLYdqOFV9qX70Wt7hTuMIx41g42Q6PorZpXiDJOVCW17cZBZnentbq neXWkTpjOkVTgVOv0eEW49vwMQhnR9upmp7ZFVrkNGR7q/8dbXKgyn1anci4WcUFl4fB tFJg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBOCliBlWPtH6tZXERRcy3v1wfydZxi0lwLxHItnmy8GOAtRC1k tygPi06ZwLJGQtyvKoChba32tryo X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZp1beYxfQbRNwpQusGXJjzA2q+yra8yDKFSfp86nJJZfBfjWVtnA5aaA5BxjCybvmC+O9b1aA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:8248:: with SMTP id 66-v6mr15593564wrb.127.1525269092140; Wed, 02 May 2018 06:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.105] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v12-v6sm10283142wrm.68.2018.05.02.06.51.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 May 2018 06:51:31 -0700 (PDT) To: "Andrew G. Malis" , Loa Andersson Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "mpls-ads@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label@ietf.org" References: From: Stewart Bryant Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 14:51:30 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7B0C195818E0C6D7EF509066" Content-Language: en-GB Archived-At: Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] should draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label be published as a RFC on the standards track? X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 13:51:37 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7B0C195818E0C6D7EF509066 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 > 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/ > > > 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 ( > mpls@ietf.org ). > > /Loa > for the mpls wf co-chairs > > PS > > I'm copying the spring working group on this mail. > -- > > > Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu > > Senior MPLS Expert > Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring --------------7B0C195818E0C6D7EF509066 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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 <loa@pi.nu> 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/

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 ( mpls@ietf.org ).

/Loa
for the mpls wf co-chairs

PS

I'm copying the spring working group on this mail.
--


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls



_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

--------------7B0C195818E0C6D7EF509066--