Re: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Haoyu,

 

I think this might just be a language thing?

“It is not required by default” means that it is not required unless it is made into a requirement by some special case.

I think it is safe to say “it is not required” because that means what it says.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: Haoyu Song <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 08 February 2024 19:06
To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Matthew Bocci (Nokia <matthew.bocci=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt

 

My understanding is that the requirement states that it’s not a required feature by default unless people want to supports some applications that do need the feature. I just try to make sure my understanding is correct and it’s up to the editor to decide if the clarification is necessary or not.

 

Best,

Haoyu

 

From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 8:56 AM
To: Haoyu Song <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Matthew Bocci (Nokia <matthew.bocci=[e-mail] <mailto:matthew.bocci=[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt

 

Hi Haoyu,

I feel that adding the "by default" clause confuses a reader. The requirement as it is worded in the draft is clear and positions post-stack AD as an optional solution if and when it is needed. Would you kindly elaborate on your motivation to add the "by default" clause?

 

Regards,

Greg

 

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 10:43 AM Haoyu Song <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

Dear all,

 

I checked my original email and found some of them have been resolved. 

 

Now I understand the intention of the #7 better, and I suggested to add “by default” at the end of the first half of the sentence to make it clearer.

 

7.   A solution MUST NOT require an implementation to support post-

        stack ancillary data (by default), unless the implementation chooses to

        support a network action that uses post-stack ancillary data.

 

The #20 remains the same, so my question stays. What are considered “existing MPLS data plane operations”. Is there a normative reference for this? Does this requirement exclude using any new operations that don’t exist today? 

 

Best regards,

Haoyu

From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 9:10 AM
To: 'Dongjie (Jimmy)' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Haoyu Song <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: 'Matthew Bocci (Nokia' <matthew.bocci=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt

 

Thanks for this, Matthew.

 

Jie and Haoyu, if you get a chance before the New Year holiday, it would be *really* helpful if you could let Matthew know whether you still have concerns resulting from your previous comments, or if Matthew has addressed them with changes to the current revision.

 

If we are all good, then a 2nd WGLC can be run (with plenty of time for review and comments after New Year).

 

Thanks,
Adrian

 

From: mpls <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
Sent: 07 February 2024 15:14
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt

 

All

 

I have just posted an updated draft, hopefully addressing Tony’s comments below.

 

There were some outstanding comments from Jie and Haoyu, but I think that these may have been addressed to some extent by some of the resolutions to the other comments. Please could you review the draft and let me know if you still have outstanding comments.

 

Thanks

 

Matthew

 

From: mpls <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > on behalf of [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 15:07
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt


CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext <http://nok.it/ext>  for additional information.



Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt is now available. It is
a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) WG of the IETF.

   Title:   Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network Actions
   Authors: Matthew Bocci
            Stewart Bryant
            John Drake
   Name:    draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt
   Pages:   11
   Dates:   2024-02-07

Abstract:

   This document specifies requirements for the development of MPLS
   network actions which affect the forwarding or other processing of
   MPLS packets.  These requirements are informed by a number of
   proposals for additions to the MPLS information in the labeled packet
   to allow such actions to be performed, either by a transit or
   terminating LSR (i.e. the LER).

The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements/

There is also an HTMLized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls