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

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi

I agree – IPR poll is neither the outcome of the PSD work by the working group nor the outcome of the work by the working group to finalize the associated changes in the draft in question.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 7:43 PM
To: Tony Li <[e-mail]>, Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>, Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>, mpls <[e-mail]>, mpls-chairs <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
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