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

Adrian,

Bullet 3 would be most attractive, but since I don't have the cycles
I think bullet 2 with a little tweak is what I think we should do.
The tweak would be that where we say that MP2P and MP2MP are out of
scope for this document. we also say that a smaller protocol fix is
needed to include MP2P and MP2MP.

Of course it someone steps in and says he/she is willing to do the job.
I would be willing you support this, e.g. by reviewing the document.

/Loa

> Thanks, Loa.
>
>> I read the original mail :), but I did not respond :(.
>
> You are forgiven.
>
>> 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.
>
> So, the reason for my question ("does anyone care?") is that it is
> important
> to understand whether we even need to consider the fix before working out
> the fix.
> Answers might be:
> - No one cares
>     - Abandon the work (subject to formal call on list)
> - People care about P2P and P2MP but not MP2P and MP2MP
>     - Rescope the work (subject to formal call on the list)
> - People care about MP2P and/or MP2MP
>     - Bring the draft back to the WG and develop the fix (and then do WG
> last call)
>
> The third of these would (of course?) require someone to do the work!
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>