Subject: [mpls] Consensus call on making drasft-ietf-mpls-rmr

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:59:48 +0800

Working Group,

draft-ietf-mpls-rmr was returned to the MPLS working group, because
the IESG could not find an interest to address the comments in the
IESG review.

When the draft was returned the working group was polled to see if
there were an interest to progress the document as a Standard Track
document. That poll could not document any interest to continue to
progress the document as a Standard Tracks document.

At that point the WG Chairs were asked if we could progress the
document intending to make an Experimental RFC. The working group
was polled to see if this idea was acceptable for the working
group. There were considerable more support for making the document
Experimental, even if it was not overwhelming, than there had been
to progress it on the Standards Track.

Based on this we have decided to allow the document to be progressed
with the intention to publish it as an Experimental RFC.

It should be noted that when we intend to publish the document as an
Experimental RFC it is not because the working group is "not interested"
in the technology or the document, but because we think this technology
is not entirely ready to be published as an Standard Track RFC, and
that there are things that need to be tested.

However, there are differences between a Standards Track RFC and
an Experimental RFC.

In particular an Experimental RFC need to define the experiment
and the exit criteria, in this case when we can close the experiment ad 
start the standardization.

draft-ietf-mpls-rmr defines code points, e.g. TLVs, these code
points need to be put into IANA registries. The authors need to
define the IANA registries for this or create a new registry.

It should also be remembered that this is a working group document
and discussions should take place and consensus called on the
working group mailing-list.

MPLS WG co-chairs

Loa, Tarek and Nic.
-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:01:14 -0800

That’s great news, Loa.

I’d appreciate guidance on documenting the experiment and exit criteria; the easiest way would be a pointer to a recent experimental RFC that you feel is relevant.

Also, do we need to reissue the docs as Expt from PS?

For the code points, it may make most sense to have a corresponding doc in LSR, as many code points are for ISIS/OSPF.  Agree?

Kireeti

> On Jan 22, 2021, at 00:00, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Working Group,
> 
> 
> and the exit criteria, in this case when we can close the experiment ad start the standardization.
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 22:35:13 +0800

Kireeti,

The simple question first :).  You are two weeks from the date when the 
current draft expire. You can do a keep-alive update and changed the 
intended status at the same time.

I think I will need some time to respond.

As for the code points, I don't see any real need to to produce a new 
draft with anything but the code points in the LSR wg, if the LSR chairs 
agree. Procedures relating to the code points belongs in this document. 
You could allocate the code points from this document.

You say that "many" code points are for ISIS/OSPF, do you see a delta 
that belongs elsewhere? If there are I strongly prefer to have the IANA 
section in a single document.

Whichever way you do there will need to be good cross-review between the 
working groups.

I have copied the LSR chairs.

/Loa

--