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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Tony, WG,

Inline please,

Den 26/09/2024 kl. 00:47, skrev Tony Li:
> 
> [WG chair hat: on]
> 
> Hi Jie,
> 
> That implementation experience was based on their implementation for the 
> Tofino architecture, which has subsequently been discontinued by the 
> manufacturer.
> (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content-details/827577/intel-tofino-products-pcn-827577-00-product-discontinuance-tofino-end-of-life.html <https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content-details/827577/intel-tofino-products-pcn-827577-00-product-discontinuance-tofino-end-of-life.html>)
> 
> I’m unaware of any other publicly documented implementations, 

ok

> but more 
> importantly the MPLS WG does not have an implementation requirement.

I'm a bit at loss why that is "more important". Trigged by writing 
Shepherds Write Up, we have asked for implementations, both SW and HW. 
We discussed an implementation requirement, but ran into the argument 
below. No one was really interested disclosing before going public, and 
once we had the public info that there were implementations we had what 
we need.

This does not mean that the working group ever regarded implementation 
unimportant or not considered it if we had it. We have actively sought 
such info, and it has had an impact on our specifications.

I hope that tradition will no be discarded.

I have one more question, and here I'm on very thin ice, because I'm not 
familiar with any of the HW architectures in scope.

Has it been demonstrated that the problem the problems that the existing 
implementation had was dependent on the Tofino architecture, and did not 
depend on the specification itself?

/Loa

> As 
> you know, MPLS is a highly competitive area and vendors are unlikely to 
> disclose implementations before going public with them, and silicon 
> lifecycles are typically quite long.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 
> 
>> On Sep 26, 2024, at 9:28 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) 
>> <jie.dong=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tarek,
>> Before the 1st WG LC, some implementation experience with the -04 
>> version of this draft was presented on an interim 
>> meeting:https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-mpls-01/session/mpls <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-mpls-01/session/mpls>. That implementation was from Academia.
>> As shown in the meeting materials, the implementors met some 
>> challenges with the encodings in -04 version, they asked some 
>> questions and also gave some proposals for possible optimization. As 
>> part of the WG LC, it would be important to check whether the issues 
>> raised at that time have be addressed by the latest version. It would 
>> be helpful if some feedback on the latest version can be provided by 
>> those implementors.
>> At IETF 120 I asked one question about the implementation report. Are 
>> we aware of any other implementation of this document, besides the 
>> implementation of the -04 version from Academia? This would be 
>> important to gauge the maturity of the document and the interest in 
>> implementing it.
>> Best regards,
>> Jie
>> *From:*Tarek Saad <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> *Sent:*Tuesday, September 24, 2024 9:25 PM
>> *To:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:*MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:*[mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr 
>> (2nd WG call)
>> Dear WG,
>> This email starts a two-week Working Group last call 
>> fordraft-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] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>).
>> If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs.
>> Note, currently there are 5 IPR disclosures against this document 
>> athttps://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]

-- 
Loa Andersson
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting
[e-mail]
[e-mail]