Subject: [Fwd: Updated MPLS charter]

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:02:39 +0200

All,

an updated version of the MPLS working group charter has
been sent to the IESG review. Comments on the charter should
be sent to the working group mailing list.

/Loa

  Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls)
  -------------------------------------

  Current Status: Active Working Group

  Chair(s):
    George Swallow <[email-masked]>
    Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>

  Routing Area Director(s):
    Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
    Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>

  Routing Area Advisor:
    Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>

  Mailing Lists:
  General Discussion: [email-masked]
  To Subscribe: [email-masked]
  In Body: subscribe (unsubscribe)
  Archive: http://cell.onecall.net/cell-relay/archives/mpls/mpls.index.html

  Description of Working Group:

  The MPLS working group is responsible for standardizing a base
  technology for using label switching and for the implementation of
  label-switched paths over various packet based link-level
  technologies, such as Packet-over-Sonet, Frame Relay, ATM, and
  LAN technologies (e.g. all forms of Ethernet, Token Ring, etc.).
  This includes procedures and protocols for the distribution of
  labels between routers and encapsulation.

  The working group is also responsible for specifying the necessary
  MIBs for the  functionality specified in the base MPLS technology.

  The first generation of the MPLS standards are largely complete,
  and the current WG work items are:

  - procedures and protocols for multicast protocol extensions for
    point-to-multipoint TE, including soft-preemption

  - Define requirements and mechanisms for MPLS OAM

  - Define an overall OAM framework for MPLS applications

  - MPLS-specific aspects of traffic engineering for multi-areas/multi-AS
    in cooperation with the CCAMP WG

  The Working Group chairs tracking of the working group documents can be
  viewed at http://urax.utfors.net/~loa/MPLS_WG_Drafts.htm

  Goals and Milestones:

  Done    Submit documents from original MPLS effort to IESG

  Done    Framework for IP multicast over label-switched paths ready
          for advancement.

  Done    LDP fault tolerance specification ready for advancement to
          Proposed Standard.

  Done    Specification for MPLS-specific recovery ready for advancement.

  Done    Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forward
          Equivalency Class-To-Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry
          Management Information Base to the IESG for publication as
          Proposed Standards

  Done    Submit Definitions of Managed Objects for MultoiProtocol
          Label Switching, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) to the
          IESG for publication as Proposed Standards

  Done    Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching
          Router (LSR), Management Information Base to the IESG for
          publication as Proposed Standards

  Done    Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview
          to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards

  Done    Submit Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol
          Label Switching (MPLS) Management to the IESG for publication
          as Proposed Standards

  Done    Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
          Engineering Management Information Base to the IESG for
          publication as Proposed Standards

  Oct 03  Advance the Label Distribution Protocol to Draft Standard.

  Oct 03  Submit the Traffic Engineering Link MIB to the IESG for
          as a Proposed Standard

  Oct 03  Submit a specification on Encapsulations to carry MPLS over
          IP and GRE to the IESG for as a Proposed Standard

  Nov 03  Together with CCAMP complete and establish the (G)MPLS change
          process

  Apr 04  Advance MPLS Architecture and MPLS encapsulation to Draft
          Standard

  Apr 04  Submit a specification on Soft Pre-emption of LSP Tunnels to
          the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard

  Nov 03  Submit specification on LSP Ping to the IESG for publication
          as a Proposed Standard

  Apr 04  Submit specification on LSR Self Test to the IESG for
          publication as a Proposed Standard

  Aug 04  Submit an OAM Framework Document to the IESG for publication
          as an Informational RFC

  Oct 04  Advance "Extension to RSVP for LSP Tunnels" to Draft
          Standard

  Nov 04  Submit a document defining the scope, requirements, and issues
          to resolve for setup of P2MP TE LSPs (MPLS and GMPLS)

  Mar 04  Submit document(s) specifying protocol extensions, enhancements
          and mechanisms for setup of P2MP TE LSPs

-----------------------------------

FYI, removed or replaced milestones:

  REMOVE  Shepherd completed MPLS specifications through IESG review and 
RFC editor processing
  REMOVE  MPLS-TE MIB ready for advancement to Proposed Standard
  REMOVE  Base MPLS Proposed Standard RFCs ready for advancement to 
Draft Standard.
  REMOVE  LDP end-to-end LSP authentication ready for advancement to 
Proposed Standard.

-- 
Loa Andersson

Mobile          +46 739 81 21 64
Email           [email-masked]

---

From: Jean Philippe Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 07:43:54 -0400

Hi Loa and George,

One comment in line.

>  Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls)

The last sentence might be slightly confusing, the word "including" gives 
the impression that soft preemption is part of the charter only in the 
context of point-to-multipoint although it applies to any sort of TE LSP, 
right ?

Thanks.

JP.

>  REMOVE  Base MPLS Proposed Standard RFCs ready for advancement to Draft 
> Standard.

---

From: Dimitri Papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:42:52 +0000 (GMT)

jp, imho the first part of this sentence:
">    - procedures and protocols for multicast protocol extensions for
>        point-to-multipoint TE, including soft-preemption"

might also be clarified as follows:
>    - procedures and protocol extensions for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs

the last two items of the charter say "for setup of" (is teardown - or 
other operations such as mbr or frr- ommitted?) i would thus suggest to 
make to leave scope open

thanks,
- dimitri.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:55:50 +0200

All,

please note that this is not on the IESG plate, comments on the charter
needs to go to

IESG <[email-masked]>

On the subjet matter of this discusion - there is a fine line between
what is implicitly included and what is not included by not mentioning
it.

I do not have a problem with the wording suggested by Dimitri -
"procedures for" is fine with me.

/Loa

-- 
Loa Andersson

Mobile          +46 739 81 21 64
Email           [email-masked]