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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Let me ask a different version of the question.

Has anyone either:

1) Implemented the protocol?

2) Put in place plans to impliment the protocol?

3) Asked their vendor to implement it so they can deploy it?

If the answer is silence to all three questions I think we can safely shelve the work until someone comes forward and asks for the work to be completed.

- Stewart

> On 4 Mar 2024, at 11:31, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>> Sent: 26 February 2024 17:36
>> To: 'mpls' <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> 
> 
>