Re: [mpls] short wgap confirmation poll on draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-02

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pavan,

I have reviewed the changes in the updated version, and think my previous comments have been solved. Thanks.

Best regards,
Jie

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2017 4:54 PM
To: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] short wgap confirmation poll on draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-02

Folks, Hi!

As Loa mentioned, we published a new version (-03) to address relevant comments/questions that were raised during the RT-review process and the WG adoption poll. Please do go through the diffs (https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-03.txt) and let us know if there are any concerns with these changes.

The following is a high-level summary of the changes introduced in this new version:

**
(1) Terminology:
There were some concerns raised regarding some of the terminology used to aid the narrative in the -02 version. Based on the feedback received, we replaced the terms ‘Pop label’, ‘Pop and forward data plane’ and ‘RSVP-TE pop and forward tunnel” with ‘TE link label’, ‘Shared MPLS forwarding plane’ and ‘Segment Routed RSVP-TE tunnel’ respectively. We got rid of the term ‘swap label’ altogether. We simply use ‘regular label’ in places where there is a need to refer to the traditional label.
**

(2) Does this draft update MPLS Architecture?
There was a question raised on whether the functionality discussed in this draft updates the base MPLS architecture (RFC3031). The answer is “No”. We added the following sentence to stress this point:

   This forwarding plane behavior fits in the MPLS architecture
   [RFC3031] and is same as that exhibited by Segment Routing (SR)
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] when using an MPLS forwarding plane
   and a series of adjacency segments.
**

(3) Does this apply to P2MP Tunnels?
There was a question raised on the applicability of this functionality to RSVP-TE P2MP tunnels. The current focus is only on P2P tunnels. We added the following statement in the draft to make this obvious:

   The signaling procedures and extensions discussed in this document do
   not apply to Point to Multipoint (P2MP) RSVP-TE Tunnels.
**

(4) How does the notion of ’TE link labels’ impact implementations that maintain per label bandwidth accounting?
We added the following statement in the draft to address this:

   Implementations that maintain per label bandwidth accounting at each
   hop must aggregate the reservations made for all the LSPs using the
   shared TE link label.
**

(5) Is there any impact on the behavior of PHP LSRs?
There is no impact. We added the following statement:

   There is no change in the behavior of a
   penultimate hop popping (PHP) LSR [RFC3031].
**


Regards,
-Pavan (on behalf of the authors)

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Working Group,

draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-02 did go through a poll
to see if we had consensus to adopt it as as a MPLS working group
document.

The outcome of the wgap was that there were changes that we wanted¨to do before adoption of the document

This is to start a short (one week) poll to see if the comments from the
earlier wgap has been correctly addressed in draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-03.

Due to the nature of the poll silence will be considered to be consent,
however it would be appreciated if those of you that made the comments
we are now addressing can confirm that tou are comfortable with how
they have been addressed.

Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
group mailing list ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>). Please give a technical
motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that
the document should not be adopted as a working group document.

There are three IPR disclosures (though one disclosure seems to be an
update) against this document.

All the authors have stated on the MPLS wg mailing list that they are
unaware of any other IPRs that those that has been disclosed

The working group adoption poll ends Decembet 19, 2017.

/Loa
mpls wg co-chair
--


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Senior MPLS Expert
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls