The MPLS WG Archive

[Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>]

All,

this mail is to close the wg last call on the re-spun
bundling draft. We've had very few comments, which is
acceptable because of the limited scope of the last call.

However we would need info on existing implementations
of draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-05.txt.

I've asked the authors to update the draft according to
comments and discussion.

/Loa



Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working group,
> 
> this is to initiate a 2 weeks working group last call on
> <>
> 
> The CCAMP working is copied on this MPLS working group last,
> since there are interdependencies between specifications from
> both working groups. Pleae use the MPLS mailing list for
> comments, cross-publishing is not necessary.
> 
> Background: This draft was reviewed by the IESG and approved
> for publication. During implementation there were some issues
> found and it was decided to pull the draft from the RFC Editors
> queue. This wg last call is limited to these issues and how
> they been addressed only.
> 
> The list of issues and how the authors has addresed has been
> sent to the mailing list(s). That text is also included in this
> mail.
> 
> For the record please note that I've asked the authors to
> update some ID-nits, those are not part of the wg last call.
> But has been included just to make it easier to progress the
> document through IESG review.
> 
> This working group last call ends on EOB December 10 PST.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> ------- issues and how they been addressed -------------
> Here is the summary:
> 
> draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-05.txt has been updated to reflect
> the comments made in the MPLS WG and on the list.  The issues
> raised are:
> 
> 1. Scope of component identifiers is open to interpretation
>    (i.e., node vs link)
> 2. No way to specify different upstream and downstream components
>    then using TLV types 1, 2 and 3
> 3. Ambiguity of contents of the IP address field in TLV types 3, 4, 5
> 4. Lack of IPv6 support for types 3, 4, and 5.
> 5. Ambiguity of when to use types 4 and 5 and when to use type 3.
> 6. No coverage of ERO and RRO implications
> 
> These issues have been addressed in the following ways:
> 
> Issue 1:  The -05 document states that all component link TLV types
>           have Node/IP scope
> Issue 2: -05 Tightly defines support for different components in each
>           direction (for bidirectional LSPs, and for all TLV types)
> Issue 3: Format of the Value field for types 3, 4 and 5 now has the
>           identical format as the contents of the C-Type 1
>           LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object defined in [RFC3477].
> Issue 4: Based on the previous change, support of IPv6 unnumbered
>           components is now tied to, and the same as, the support of
>           IPv6 unnumber TE links.
> Issue 5: -05 allows, but recommend against use of types 4 and 5
> Issue 6: EROs, RROs remain out of scope of bundling document
> 
> Current planned changes are:
> - Fix nits found by Adrian and Loa
> - Insert a Table of Contents
> - Section numbering will remain unchanged so as not to break
>   any potentially existing references to the draft
> 
> Yakov.
> -------------------- end of included text --------------------
> 
> Loa Andersson
> 
> Principal Networking Architect
> Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
> Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
> Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
>                                            loa@pi.se
> 

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
                                            loa@pi.se

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls