[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

[WG chair hat: off]

Several actions can share the same metadata if their descriptions are written up correctly.

Why do you need a new format for this?

A specific proposal or use case would really help the discussion.

Tony


> On Jun 4, 2024, at 9:08 AM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> One packet may need multiple actions/opcodes.
> The group format will indicate several actions can share the same metadata.
> 
> Tianran 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from WeLink
> 发件人： John Drake<je_drake=[e-mail] <mailto:je_drake=[e-mail]>>
> 收件人： Tarek Saad<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;Tianran Zhou<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 抄送： MPLS Working Chairs<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom Standard&Patent)<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 主题： Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
> 时间： 2024-06-04 21:36:51
> 
> So, for what are the post opcode bits in each of the subsequent format C LSEs used?
> 
> On Monday, June 3, 2024 at 08:40:12 PM PDT, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi WG and Authors,
> 
>  
> This draft proposed the 4 LSE formats with sequence: A-B-C-D.
> 
> I want to propose a new LSE format. Let’s call it C’ temporarily.
> 
> C’ is a kind of group, which can group several C formats.
> 
> So the sequence is A-B-C’-C-D.
> 
>  
> This format can reduce the redundancy of several LSEs.
> 
> For example, if several LSEs have the same flow id, we can just put this flow id at the beginning of the group. And all the following LSEs in this group can use.
> 
>  
> Best,
> 
> Tianran
> 
>  
> From: Tarek Saad [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 10:50 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
> 
>  
> 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/>.
> 
>  
> 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] <mailto:[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
> 
>  
> This poll runs until June 18, 2024.
> 
>  
> Thank you,
> 
> Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]