[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tianran,
Thank you for the reference. As I understand your requests, you don't see
how the MNA solution, defined in draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr, conforms to these
requirements. Is that correct?

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 5:43 PM Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Please see below:
>
>
>
>    5.   Subject to the constraints in these requirements, a Network
>
>         Action solution MAY carry MNA information in-stack, post-stack,
>
>         or both in-stack and post-stack.
>
>
>
>    6.   Solution specifications MUST NOT require an implementation to
>
>         support in-stack ancillary data, unless the implementation
>
>         chooses to support an NA that uses in-stack ancillary data.
>
>
>
> Tianran
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 8:24 AM
> *To:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Tony Li <[e-mail]>; Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>; mpls <
> [e-mail]>; mpls-chairs <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>
>
>
> Hi Tianran,
>
> Please point me to the part of RFC 9613
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9613/> that supports your request.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 4:44 PM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The IPR poll for the two document did not hit the point.
>
> The point is how can the MNA mechanism disable the ISD and use PSD only.
>
> The draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr need to resolve this.
>
>
>
> Tianran
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony Li [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Tony Li
> *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 12:13 AM
> *To:* Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <
> [e-mail]>; Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>; mpls <
> [e-mail]>; mpls-chairs <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG
> call)
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Zafar,
>
>
>
> I am aware of the thread but all we hear is that chairs are discussing the
> responses and will share further update, “interest” vs. “consensus” debate,
> the chairs are discussing how to initiate the PSD debate, etc. There were
> 65 emails on the original PSD poll. I am not sure why we need another round
> of debate and what will be the nature of that debate. Why not just start WG
> adoption call and gauge the WG “consensus”.
>
>
>
>
>
> That’s exactly what we’re doing. The process for doing this begins with an
> IPR poll.
>
>
>
> Nic started the IPR poll on draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex and
> draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-dex on Sept 3.
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/XU3Ycij6Oq2kGWi14k3eXmpdQvM/
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/7NmJqyMHDairPxEn7PGxz99KNiI/
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>