Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 09 April 2018 10:41 UTC
Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16483126DCA; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 03:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 7ze_YiJy1Adi; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 03:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-f177.google.com (mail-wr0-f177.google.com [209.85.128.177]) (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 DEC1F126BF6; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 03:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m13so9084042wrj.5; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 03:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Bwch/zejw0tNIRlFutF9HFX7HIYP2OuDw/rUY+dXd6s=; b=VvuCjEYuJpK3y7DgFuhehdk1Z1EVyDXGaN5OO5oCXSPgBNR0PPOfJloalSbR89+lOR MtG40qwseqMICUWxroYfukFxmZq58sTwOuJbh0ixoJ/XGRDTxm6Ba7xCXLL2flglpVnz G6kasELuTThd8zvg71EizDTCRjxC4EArB9j9bpAen2l8qS3iIvmDbMyKpJ/O13evHtkf BMRI3Y2WdVHKEHYVAbYee2vK0MBLaoI+oUEOoJb85XaKGhtKxmtMvBjGK/i6DSS+GCQ/ yAc2msQxp42Z2jUA3kb2A7TokZZV3U/NaWJd3K/ydCr185usj73Xeq3KM4ooI8DSi13z KKoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FLilhLfmJ58KB2mfNBJVXa3kaDWYok7ky/gqx+mgVVzW1iZvjP eItn5Ro+ZAQfWD+oDkiDP4lVFpP/1XtyazuiWbY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49s7SAxhFTpQlL0vEc60KrhxgbNg94iq6PpcFhONM1oCBf2dhG301b0p01HO7usWToWIgqGYmNRQNrHJr7MLxY=
X-Received: by 10.223.209.143 with SMTP id h15mr23398509wri.208.1523270486934; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 03:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2ac6b61d-3a38-1aaf-62ae-d923f1ad7468@pi.nu> <a392880f-6b86-4406-a348-42398e24285a.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com> <DB5PR07MB158998C7FAAB4831C243D88D83A30@DB5PR07MB1589.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ERnJNad6Awo+-2dU2kz6rwx-HQEniXcWgjoWUd-zm3r2qQ@mail.gmail.com> <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C88828EFEB@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com> <CA+b+ER==g53MZK5RSNmaFkg1UBC8zEiNsfxNLKCNXDumannaHg@mail.gmail.com> <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C88828F06D@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com> <052998BB-B820-412C-8363-B3EB7551B299@nokia.com> <2c59588b-51d3-a298-a30b-507082da9261@pi.nu> <d1a692dd-4153-94b2-8846-4540b6feceab@pi.nu> <33B45D97-52EF-4DE9-A5A1-1A823961F351@nokia.com> <fd2fcbb6-09e9-bb3e-ceac-1186e2b71647@pi.nu> <E58FBC59-0F56-42CA-83B2-7647EB223A29@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <E58FBC59-0F56-42CA-83B2-7647EB223A29@nokia.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 10:41:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnio6WYRSOETO14gEnKuh8Q=FtrNK5daZmk1hGF0rS+Cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
Cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>, draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <draft-farrel-mpls-sfc@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e80c358845482d0569680c6c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/sTsgsJd0iJIUv4lhwLYKJ56a5qc>
Subject: Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 10:41:33 -0000
If you exclude co-authors it is not even equal ;) Best, R. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 11:44 Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) < wim.henderickx@nokia.com> wrote: > Loa, the part where I disagree is the rough consensus since you see equal > number of people for/against. I don’t call this rough consensus. > > On 09/04/2018, 09:46, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> wrote: > > Wim, et.al., > > There are a number of things that could be discussed in this context. > We might view the IETF process slightly different. > > The IETF allow for "rough consensus". Meaning that there mihgt be > some wg members that are "in the rough", i.e. not supporting the > decisions taken by the part of the working group forming the "rough > consensus" group. > > Being in the rough is sometimes hard, the best way forward is often to > accept the decision and try to constructively contribute to e.g. > progressing a document. > > You say that "none of the issues raised have been addressed", the > validity of the statement depends on what you mean by addressed. > > "Addressed" is normally a language that we use when requesting > publication of a document. "Addressed" is more or less synonymous > with "solved". > > In the context of working group adoption poll "addressed" in this > meaning is not necessary. "Addressed" in this context should mean > "recognized" and that all parties are willing to discuss the issues. > > There are a few criteria for accepting a document as a working group > document > > - the document is a good enough starting point > - enough support (rough consensus) in the working group to adopt > the document > - there are enough people in the wg that are willing to work on > the document > - any issues that are recognized in the poll, is deemed to be possible > to during the working group process > > All these three criteria are met. Especially for the third criteria > the wg chair believe that it is easier to resolve the issues if the > working group holds the revision control and make consensus calls > (explicit or implicit) on these issues or other text changes to the > document. > > With this I hope we can can put this process discussion to the side > and instead focus on the technical issues. > > /Loa > mpls wg co-chair > > On 2018-04-08 08:03, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: > > Loa, I still don’t see where the consensus was reached. I looked > back at the tracker and you see same amount of people for as well as > against and none of the issues raised have been addressed, based on the > feedback you have seen. > > So I really question the process here and 2nd you should run another > poll on the new draft given the issues were not addressed. > > > > On 02/04/2018, 16:42, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> wrote: > > > > Working Group, > > > > I sent this mail some time ago, however I can't see that it > > actually reached it destinations. > > > > /Loa > > > > > > > > > Working Group, Wim, et.al., > > > > > > We had very good support to adopt already version-04. > > > > > > However, after a mail from the author, saying they wanted to > make > > > come changes in the document, we allowed for publication of > > > version-05. > > > > > > This version were adopted as a working group document. > > > > > > Please note the the wg chairs has to do the consensus call > when > > > e.g. adopting a document as working group document. We found > > > that we had a "rough consensus" to adopt the document. > > > > > > This decision was taken by the wg chairs, which is fully > within > > > the IETF process. > > > > > > That decision is taken, the issues that has been pointed out > are > > > noted. These issues need to be resolved on the mailing list > and > > > rough consensus need to be reached for text changes in the > document. > > > > > > Actually the members of the working group have much more > influence on > > > a working group document, than on an individual draft. > > > > > > It would be far better if we now focused on proposing text > changes, > > > rather than discussing processes. > > > > > > /Loa > > > mpls wg co-chair > > > > > > On 2018-03-30 20:59, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) > wrote: > > >> Deborah, > > >> > > >> There seems to be a flaw in the process here. There were > major > > >> objections to the draft against WG adoption. A new draft was > spun, so > > >> I would expect a new WG adoption call to happen and get the > WG > > >> feedback + decide afterwards if the draft gets adopted or > not. The > > >> last part is completely missing. Without such procedure > whats the > > >> point of having a WG. > > >> > > >> So, it would at least be fair per IETF principles to do > another WG > > >> adoption call and see what happens. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> > > >> Wim > > >> > > >> *From: *"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> > > >> *Date: *Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 22:03 > > >> *To: *Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> > > >> *Cc: *"Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" > > >> <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, > "徐小虎 > > >> (义先)" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" < > sfc@ietf.org>, > > >> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc <draft-farrel-mpls-sfc@ietf.org>, > > >> "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, mpls > > >> <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> > > >> *Subject: *RE: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of > > >> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc > > >> > > >> Hi Robert, > > >> > > >> Looking at the email threads, there was good support for > this draft on > > >> the list (look at earlier responses) recognizing it as a > needed > > >> approach when the NSH was not supported. The authors have > added > > >> sentences to further clarify this does not replace the > benefits of > > >> NSH, it is not “fully redundant”. Everyone will have > different > > >> approaches for migration depending on their networks and > probably > > >> large operators will need to support multiple approaches in > various > > >> parts of their network. Just as different approaches for > technology > > >> and control are used. As you say, NSH can not be introduced > overnight. > > >> But SFCs are being used now, and we need to help the industry > > >> understand potential migration approaches and tradeoffs. > > >> > > >> This is now a working group document. If you have an > alternative MPLS > > >> approach, propose it. Often working group documents get > respun several > > >> times. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Deborah > > >> > > >> *From:* rraszuk@gmail.com [mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of > > >> *Robert Raszuk > > >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2018 3:12 PM > > >> *To:* BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com> > > >> *Cc:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) < > wim.henderickx@nokia.com>; > > >> mpls@ietf.org; 徐小虎(义先) <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>; > > >> sfc@ietf.org; draft-farrel-mpls-sfc < > draft-farrel-mpls-sfc@ietf.org>; > > >> mpls-chairs@ietf.org; mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> > > >> *Subject:* Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of > > >> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc > > >> > > >> Dear Deborah, > > >> > > >> Let me perhaps clarify that our comments were not focused on > which WG > > >> this draft should progress in, but if it should progress at > all. > > >> > > >> Forwarding plane is not something companies can spin > overnight and > > >> number of us do believe that IETF has already made a call as > to > > >> encoding choice of SFC being NSH header. Introducing MPLS > labels to > > >> partially mimic it will likely not help, but disturb the NSH > > >> deployments. It will also introduce development conflicts > due to both > > >> hardware and human resource constrains. > > >> > > >> Moreover as it was also pointed out during the discussion > and to which > > >> no one responded MPLS in the data plane has been successfully > > >> developed and deployed in SFC application with the help of > > >> draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining. Control plane is much > easier to > > >> extend then to define yet one more data plane. > > >> > > >> So what are the real technical reasons to introduce fully > redundant > > >> data plane encoding for SFC ? And that is regardless in > which WG that > > >> would happen. > > >> > > >> Kind regards, > > >> > > >> Robert. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A > > >> <db3546@att.com<mailto:db3546@att.com>> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> Both myself (AD for MPLS) and Martin (AD for SFC and > SPRING) were > > >> consulted on this draft and we agreed for it to progress > in MPLS. > > >> > > >> WG adoption allows the document to be a document of the > working > > >> group vs. the authors. If you have input for the > document, provide > > >> it on the MPLS list. The document will be coordinated at > key > > >> transitions with SFC. This is not the first time that > documents > > >> early in their timelines may seem to overlap in the > different > > >> groups, and need the authors to collaborate to sort > out/merge, as > > >> these documents are ultimately products of IETF, and not > the > > >> individual authors. > > >> > > >> I noted below it is said that this new version does not > eliminate > > >> the conflict with the other draft’s approach. It is best > to say > > >> specifically which text is in conflict and do a proposal > to align. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Deborah > > >> > > >> *From:* sfc > > >> [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org>] > *On > > >> Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk > > >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:06 AM > > >> *To:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) > > >> <wim.henderickx@nokia.com<mailto: > wim.henderickx@nokia.com>> > > >> *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>; 徐小虎(义先) > > >> <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com<mailto: > xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>>; > > >> sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>; draft-farrel-mpls-sfc > > >> > > >> <draft-farrel-mpls-sfc@ietf.org<mailto: > draft-farrel-mpls-sfc@ietf.org>>; > > >> mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>; mpls > > >> <mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>> > > >> *Subject:* Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of > > >> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc > > >> > > >> Hey Wim, > > >> > > >> It is very obvious on what basis this adoption happened > .... > > >> > > >> If ADs do not take any serious action here it will > progress smooth & > > >> direct to RFC. > > >> > > >> I am only a bit puzzled why the WG last call has not > started yet on > > >> this :/. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> > > >> R. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia > - > > >> BE/Antwerp) > > >> <wim.henderickx@nokia.com<mailto: > wim.henderickx@nokia.com>> wrote: > > >> > > >> Similar comment here on what basis do we adopt this. > There were > > >> serious issues and although a new draft was posted > they have not > > >> been addressed. On what basis do you adopt this? I > thought IETF > > >> works on basis of consensus and in my view this was > not achieved > > >> so far. > > >> > > >> From iPhone > > >> > > >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> > > >> *From:*mpls > > >> <mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>> > on behalf > > >> of 徐小虎(义先) > > >> <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com<mailto: > xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>> > > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:17:04 AM > > >> *To:* mpls; mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> > > >> *Cc:* draft-farrel-mpls-sfc; > > >> mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>; > > >> sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org> > > >> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Working Group adoption of > > >> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc > > >> > > >> Hi Loa, > > >> > > >> I don't believe the modification in Section 6 of > > >> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc > > >> > > >> ( > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05.txt< > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dfarrel-2Dmpls-2Dsfc-2D05.txt&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=ztYp9cmCmsjVMZ_-dGDWFg9kO1Kj7tP9b3VpgMVoJrw&e= > >) > > >> > > >> has eliminated the serious conflict with the > SR-MPLS-based SFC > > >> approach as described in > > >> > > >> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining-03< > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dxu-2Dmpls-2Dservice-2Dchaining-2D03&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=G-AiwBZi02SAyGhGBxiXhU_BHgQcuYKJlxpyeTYsgz0&e=> > (note > > >> > > >> that this draft has been merged into > > >> > > >> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-clad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00< > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dxu-2Dclad-2Dspring-2Dsr-2Dservice-2Dchaining-2D00&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=Ul-MW_AEUW2CKbWwZ3C0KOPM0gW5dUwxoMFR050i1T0&e= > >), > > >> > > >> as had been pointed by many people before. > > >> > > >> Therefore, it seems a little bit unreasonable to > hurry the > > >> adoption of the current version, IMHO. > > >> > > >> Xiaohu > > >> > > >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> > > >> Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>> > > >> > > >> 2018年3月28日(星期三) 15:56 > > >> > > >> > > >> mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org><mpls@ietf.org<mailto: > mpls@ietf.org>> > > >> > > >> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc > > >> > > >> <draft-farrel-mpls-sfc@ietf.org<mailto: > draft-farrel-mpls-sfc@ietf.org>>; > > >> > > >> sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org><sfc@ietf.org<mailto: > sfc@ietf.org>>; > > >> > > >> mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>< > mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>> > > >> > > >> > > >> [mpls] Working Group adoption of > draft-farrel-mpls-sfc > > >> > > >> Working Group, > > >> > > >> > > >> The MPLS working group have decided to adopt > draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05 as > > >> an MPLS working group document. > > >> > > >> > > >> Can the authors please post draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00, without > any other > > >> than administrative (filename, version and > dates) changes. > > >> > > >> /Loa > > >> for the MPLS wg chairs > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Loa Andersson email: > > >> loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu> > > >> Senior MPLS Expert > > >> Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 > 739 81 21 64 > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> mpls mailing list > > >> mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> > > >> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls< > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mpls&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=R5fzJWvbB4NSwtL3I3_FvNHHjJJsuKb8Cxf-2gQw6hI&e= > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> mpls mailing list > > >> mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> > > >> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls< > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mpls&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KYDHMX0VHLQFDKH4tDeCulCk3aZJkwGUKsyTKezhMLQ&s=R5fzJWvbB4NSwtL3I3_FvNHHjJJsuKb8Cxf-2gQw6hI&e= > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> mpls mailing list > > >> mpls@ietf.org > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu > > Senior MPLS Expert > > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > > > > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu > Senior MPLS Expert > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > >
- [sfc] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls… Loa Andersson
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Chengli (IP Technology Research)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Zafar Ali (zali)
- [sfc] 回复: [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Bernier, Daniel
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Loa Andersson
- [sfc] 答复: [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Lizhenbin
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Bernier, Daniel
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Lizhong Jin
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… bruno.decraene
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [sfc] [mpls] Working Group adoption of draft-… Andrew G. Malis