[mpls] Re: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Ok, this is NOT the result that I was expecing and I’m sorry, but I’m not on board with this.

T


> On Sep 9, 2024, at 7:55 PM, - xiao.min2 at zte.com.cn <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Jim,
> 
> 
> 
> By using the text suggested by Deborah, with some small tweaks, the proposed changes are as below.
> 
> OLD
> 
> Note that in parallel to the work of this document, there is ongoing work on MPLS Network Actions (MNA) [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-10>]. Considering the MPLS performance measurement with the Alternate-Marking method can also be achieved by MNA encapsulation, it is agreed that this document will be made Historic once the MNA solution of performance measurement with the Alternate-Marking method is published as an RFC.¶ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-16#section-1-3>
> 
> 
> NEW
> 
> Note that in parallel to the work of this document, there is ongoing work on MPLS Network Actions (MNA) [RFC9613]. The MPLS performance measurement with the Alternate-Marking method can also be achieved by MNA encapsulation. In addition, MNA will provide a broader use case applicability. That means the MNA encapsulation will provide an alternative, more advanced solution, when published as an RFC.¶ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-16#section-1-3>
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Xiao Min
> 
> Original
> From: JamesGuichard <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;Tony Li <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;mpls-chairs <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;mpls <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> Date: 2024年09月09日 23:13
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> Dear authors,
>  
> Could you please provide the text you are planning to add to the document so that everyone is on the same page. I believe that I understand what will change but I would like to see the actual text.
>  
> Thanks!
>  
> Jim
>  
> From: James Guichard <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 at 11:00 AM
> To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Tony Li <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, mpls-chairs <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, mpls <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
>  
> Suggest:
> can also be achieved by MNA encapsulation, it is agreed .will be made Historic/s/can also be achieved by MNA encapsulation and, in addition, MNA will provide a broader use case applicability. The MNA encapsulation will provide an alternative, more advanced solution, when published as an RFC.
> [XM]>>> The text you suggested looks good to me. As an editor of this document, I'll let the ADs and MPLS WG chairs to comment before using your text in the next revision. 
>  
>  
> I’m not sure I can precisely follow the notation that you’ve used, but I understand your intent and have no issue with it.  
>  
> Jim> I also have no issue with it. I am comfortable with the explanation provided by the chairs in response to my query during my AD review. 
>  
> Jim
>  
> Tony
> MPLS co-chair
> Document shepherd
>  
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>