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

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Wed, 02 May 2018 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
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 D3FA612DA40; Wed, 2 May 2018 12:00:08 -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 LGBh8aAEiFmR; Wed, 2 May 2018 12:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x235.google.com (mail-ot0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::235]) (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 9154412E03A; Wed, 2 May 2018 12:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 77-v6so17833752otd.4; Wed, 02 May 2018 12:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dK/dX3jZAgceOKPPSiEAinES9rciCge0tzl+RENuHGw=; b=HDKLWofgAYFu6YI4AsX5LNo2Xbt1S0hdXQ5Z+ldK5bmDkIyzvMAKsFEFvWdUfihsbW bTz+Eg1AVX9AsGKz8bHPuDWeYz4EIVxHbNNEmf5BZvUXiyFafolUxtvMZ/xTCH3KCytA S67bqekX6wU/K92BKNCarw7Gqo28nWm3HNPeFAs9cNljGbnEt/3PRT/oc3METvkTJEU0 f2TkCyW7bdbSTJPaY+PSMBF+Y5yGkn3vk6QGEt9DA9pAzCb/tIX1I9vhLFa8SNOhYcQX nKxoz81n4bHxy3X4pSv72OMlpqoQWek1PV2KycfKZn4FdgVUpTvp9nGmwX79jYlbA5RR vmKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dK/dX3jZAgceOKPPSiEAinES9rciCge0tzl+RENuHGw=; b=ROdaeYp5mqtFrZg0wXZsv4xmjOHbqTJCq7R3fc9aIzST6iWw+mQnwCXK6G5mN/F0AS OXyLblnPreOIrM/2zSGCD0MqSwy5TR4dJ9DrpVulOpwqOh5C+Uy7+FWhdma5scdD1znq PeAYsUEgytvZUfI8jbvkaLdiN+NcGkUpuZMiRPHt561ltGiBdFT2/mGCjdIzg1MGzzAX q5fIYQcScMZVwRsAajrSOerf66BGqzc1hqi/if7ql3AHTx8e6dyN6cMKaLpY2ToSot8c qjPwEZKvXcyXka+SgnrpNxf6HQeeGkHg8XXl9pPqp58ea72xpDgq832yk361s/QUxDjd zBHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCSr7+V4/BeqZEx9Wbj8ZBMp3Kz6dXHN04r3Fln23vG0h46btR2 7ziisknSFIDkb9LTzxDd5nSq4FhjdOw0fkxthAAcmw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrFFr+Vo4UlJ/82qIZHgOOKEiRFb7mjASX86OQaax7enR6WF/GeWE1b6WxbhcQ+ye5QUNkly0WEN3hrHtw3O+M=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:440b:: with SMTP id u11-v6mr13816034ote.276.1525287604645; Wed, 02 May 2018 12:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:1f27:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 2 May 2018 11:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF64BA5FDB4@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
References: <a3dbc94b-061c-8eb8-7302-3a60f3db4a3f@pi.nu> <CAA=duU3Xc3BvYT1cmVN97vsEYQMsmm6kGqZaibuGOr6QrX42_w@mail.gmail.com> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF64BA5FDB4@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 14:59:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1BMPgAQoRO6dLLf=d7+WzfpYDM+KK-=gj9-cAWdK05xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
Cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "mpls-ads@ietf.org" <mpls-ads@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000daf417056b3db128"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/hmIEtzdu7XP3mVaTTmcW9ErYR1A>
Subject: Re: [mpls] 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 <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 19:00:12 -0000

Eric,

That’s a fair point, and a matter of interpretation of the draft. It would
be more obvious that standards track was necessary if the draft defined new
message formats or TLVs on the wire, or if any requests were being made of
IANA. Neither is the case in this draft.

However, there is quite a bit of RFC 2119 language. That means that
interoperability requirements are being made of implementers of a
draft/RFC. An implementation MUST do the “MUST”s, and so on, if they want
to play nicely with other implementations.

Informational status is great for documents like architectures, problem
statements, or to document how a particular vendor or operator did
something interesting. However, right in the abstract, this draft says
“This document examines and describes how ELs are to be applied to Segment
Routing MPLS.” That, in combination with the RFC 2119 language, sounds very
standards tracky, rather than informational, to me.

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Andy,
>
>
>
>                 Don’t you feel that this is just a bit of a flip
> observation?
>
>
>
>                 Personally I agree that RFC 2119 “language” and even a
> reference to RFC 2119 itself seems inappropriate in an “FYI” RFC.
>
>
>
>                 But I have been over-ridden on that before.
>
>
>
>                 I have to say, however that making something a standards
> track document _*because*_ it has RFC 2119 “language” in it is a tad
> extreme.
>
>
>
>                 Know another RFC that has a lot of RFC 2119 “language” in
> it that is not a standards track RFC?  RFC 2119…
>
>
>
>                 😊
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G. Malis
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 02, 2018 9:01 AM
> *To:* Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
> *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; mpls-ads@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] should draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label be
> published as a RFC on the standards track?
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>