Re: [Detnet] Comments on draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Matthew and Stewart,
thank you for your work addressing my comments; much appreciated. I have
several follow-up questions and comments to the new version of the draft,
mostly to the new Section 3.1.2
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements#section-3.1.2>
:

   - I may suggest an editorial update to bullet 2

OLD TEXT:
   2.   A common mechanism for ancillary data MUST be defined so that a
        node receiving the ancillary data can determine whether to
        process, ignore or discard it.
NEW TEXT:
   2.   A common mechanism for ancillary data MUST be defined so that a
        node receiving the ancillary data can act according to the local
policies.

   - bullet 4 receives two notes:
      - I think it should be a requirement, not a recommendation
      - I think that an LSR must not be able to insert any ancillary data.
      Only ingress LER inserts data.
   - it would be good if bullet 6 can be split into two
   - RE: bullet 7, I don't think that MPLS is the appropriate layer to
   guarantee in-order delivery. Should that be left to an application?
   - it appears that bullet 8 is specific to the PSD case. If that is the
   case, should it refer to the BoS instead of "as close to the label stack as
   possible"?
   - I think that having a requirement for the use of a common ancillary
   data header will help the discussion.

Couple nits:

   - "an/or" -> "and/or"
   - s/lath/path/

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:58 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg
>
>
>
> Thank you for your detailed review and comments. We have tried to address
> these in the updated draft that we just posted.
>
>
>
> In answer to your question below about whether the ancillary data needs a
> common format, I agree that it at least needs a common header format.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 20:18
> *To: *[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc: *mpls <[e-mail]>, spring <[e-mail]>, DetNet WG <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Comments on draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements
>
> Hi Stewart and Matthew,
>
> thank you for organizing this document in a very clear and concise manner.
> I enjoyed reading it.
>
> Attached, please find a copy of the draft with my notes, comments, and
> suggestions. The most important, in my view, the question I have Should we
> add the requirement to have a common format for ancillary data defined?
>
>
>
> Looking forward to your feedback.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>