Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr draft updates

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jag,
thank you for your kind consideration of my notes. I like the update but I
think that Loa's proposals make them even better. I support updates that
include Loa's propsed texts.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 09:58 Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Working Group,
>
> Some of the chairs are on vacation, this that the work is going a little
> bit slower than normal, thanks for your understanding.
>
> However we will discuss how to progress the draft, including polling
> recent changes.
>
> <chair hat off>
>
> I agree with Tone that the changes that has been dome is mostly good.
>
> One small editorial comments. In section 7 the current craft says:
>
> 7.  NAS placement in the Label Stack
>
>     Regardless of whether packets are being forwarded based on Segment
>     Routing [RFC8662], LDP [RFC5036], or RSVP-TE [RFC3209], the node
>     adding an NAS to the label stack will need to place a copy of the NAS
>     where it can be read by the relevant nodes.  Each node along the path
>     will have Readable Label Depth (RLD) defined as the number of labels,
>     starting from the top of the stack, a router can read in an MPLS
>     packet received on its incoming interface(s).  If the NAS is to be
>     processed by a particular node, then the entire NAS MUST be placed so
>     that it is within RLD by the time the packet reaches the node.
>
>     If the label stack is deep, several copies of the NAS may need to be
>     encoded in the label stack.
>
> I suggest  the following change in the second sentence of the first
> paragraph
>
> s/Each node along the path will have Readable Label Depth (RLD) defined
> as the number of labels/Each node along the path will have Readable
> Label Depth (RLD) defined as the number of LSEs.
>
> Also LSEs of format B, C and D will need to be counted.
>
> You are using "label" the same way in section 7.1, I don't think it is
> strictly necessary to update section 7.1, but the definition should be
> correct.
>
> Since the RLD should be defined in the framework, the authors of the
> framework need to review the definition.
>
> <chair hat on>
>
> /Loa
>
>
>
> On 2023-08-31 02:24, Tony Li wrote:
> >
> > These changes look good to me.
> >
> > As this is now a WG document, we need to have consensus to publish these
> > changes.  I would ask that the WG chairs start the polling process.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 30, 2023, at 10:37 AM, Jaganbabu Rajamanickam
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Everyone,
> >>   I have updated the RLD specific comments from Tony and Greg.
> >>  I am sending the latest draft and the diff.
> >>
> >> Thanx,
> >> Jags
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jaganbabu Rajamanickam
> >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Hello Greg,
> >>
> >>        Thanks for the review.
> >>
> >>        We could add the text on RLD which you have suggested.
> >>
> >>        For MSD, How about the below text in section "9.1 -
> >>     Encapsulating Node Responsibilities".
> >>
> >>        The path computation needs to know the Maximum SID Depth (MSD)
> >>        that can be imposed at the ingress node of a given SR path
> >>     [RFC8664].
> >>        This ensures that the label stack depth of a computed path does
> not
> >>        exceed the maximum number of labels (i.e., MSD) the node is
> >>     capable of imposing.
> >>        The MSD needs to include the MNA Sub-Stacks to be added.
> >>
> >>     Thanx,
> >>     Jags
> >>
> >>     On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 2:52 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]
> >>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>
> >>         Hi Jags,
> >>         thank you for sharing the updates. I have a couple
> >>         of questions about RLD.
> >>
> >>           * The updated draft presents RLD as being a newly defined
> >>             term introduced in this draft. Although RLD might be
> >>             related to ERLD-MSD defined in RFC 9088, that is okay if
> >>             the draft provides a clear definition of the new term.
> >>             Section 7, in my understanding, describes the usage of RLD
> >>             but is rather short on defining it. Would the following
> >>             text be acceptable:
> >>
> >>         Readable Label Depth is defined as the number of
> >>         labels, starting from the top of the stack, a router can read
> >>         in an MPLS packet received on its incoming interface(s).
> >>
> >>           * It looks like RLD is presented as a system-wide parameter.
> >>             I think that it might be more accurate to consider RLD per
> >>             ingress interface (see the proposed definition of RLD
> above).
> >>
> >>         Also, do the Editors find it helpful to note that the Base
> >>         MPLS Imposition MSD affects the imposition of the label stack
> >>         that includes MNA?
> >>
> >>         Regards,
> >>         Greg
> >>
> >>         On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:29 AM Jaganbabu Rajamanickam
> >>         (jrajaman) <jrajaman=[e-mail]
> >>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>
> >>             Hello Everyone, ____
> >>
> >>                Attaching new attachments and resending.____
> >>
> >>             __ __
> >>
> >>             Thanx,____
> >>
> >>             Jags____
> >>
> >>             __ __
> >>
> >>             *From: *Jaganbabu Rajamanickam <[e-mail]
> >>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>             *Date: *Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:21 PM
> >>             *To: *mpls <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>             *Cc: *mpls-chairs <[e-mail]
> >>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> >>             [e-mail]
> >>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>             <[e-mail]
> >>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>             *Subject: *draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr draft updates____
> >>
> >>             Hello Everyone,____
> >>
> >>                Based on the WG discussion and comments, we have
> >>             updated the draft. I am attaching the latest draft and the
> >>             diff before publishing. Please take a look and provide
> >>             feedback.____
> >>
> >>             __ __
> >>
> >>             Below are the updates made to the draft.____
> >>
> >>             __ __
> >>
> >>              1. Define and use term RLD (Readable Label Depth)____
> >>              2. Add MNA Label in Figure 1____
> >>              3. Packet format to show bits 0 – 9____
> >>              4. Reserved bits are marked as MUST be zero and ignored
> >>                 on receipt____
> >>              5. Section 7 to clarify PHP node behaviour____
> >>              6. Section 7.1 added on “actions on node pushing
> labels”____
> >>              7. Deleted stale section of 13.3 on “Network Actions
> >>                 Flags with Ancillary Data”____
> >>              8. Designated Editors____
> >>              9. Informational References (both moved from normative)____
> >>
> >>             __ __
> >>
> >>             __ __
> >>
> >>             Thanx,____
> >>
> >>             Jags____
> >>
> >>             _______________________________________________
> >>             mpls mailing list
> >>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >>             <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
> >>
> >>
> <draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-03.txt><draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-03.diff.html>_______________________________________________
> >> mpls mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>