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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Between John's note below, and the fact that many hardware implementors 
are loath to implement until the document is an RFC, due to the fact 
that we can change drafts, it seems clear to me that the mna-hdr draft 
should be send to the AD for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Yours,

Joel

On 10/5/2024 12:21 PM, John Drake wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> What I think is being missed in this discussion is that various 
> vendors' hardware designers have been involved in this project since 
> its inception and the subject draft is in large part shaped by their 
> input.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2024 at 07:25:13 AM PDT, Matthew Bocci 
> (Nokia) <matthew.bocci=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tarek
>
> I’ve read the latest version of the draft and it is clear and well 
> written.
>
> The draft specifies some extensions to the MPLS data plane that 
> fundamentally augment the way MPLS works, and provides new ways to 
> alter the forwarding of MPLS packets. Although there was one 
> experimental implementation which was very much appreciated, there 
> doesn’t seem to have been any public attempt to survey the community 
> for other implementations. Implementation might be a bit difficult 
> because there isn’t even an early IANA allocation of the MNA bSPL . I 
> appreciate that the MPLS WG has not traditionally put an 
> implementation requirement on drafts, but given that MNA is making 
> changes or additions to a data plane that has been deployed at the 
> heart of the Internet for several decades it might be good to gain 
> more implementation experience before publishing this draft on the 
> Standards Track.
>
> Matthew
>
> *From: *Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 14:25
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr 
> (2nd WG call)
>
> 	
>
> *CAUTION:*This is an external email. Please be very careful when 
> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for 
> additional information.
>
> Dear WG,
>
> This email starts a two-week Working Group last call for 
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr/>. This is 
> the 2^nd WG last call for this document.
>
> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are 
> opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your 
> concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the 
> latest version, and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As 
> always, review comments and nits are most welcome.
>
> Please send your comments to the mpls WG mailing list ([e-mail])
>
> If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs.
>
> Note, currently there are 5 IPR disclosures against this document at 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr>
>
> This poll runs until October 8, 2024.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]