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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Given that the PSD proposal on the table requires the ISD draft, and 
does not require any changes to the ISD draft, I do not understand your 
comments.  You have said you do not want any ISD solution, and now you 
are suggesting we adopt a PSD solution that requires ISD?

And it is not clear that we need a PSD solution at all.

If we need a PSD solution, I expect with some clarifications and 
modifications the jags psd draft can serve as a basis for further work.  
I would strongly prefer to get the ISD work done.  Then we can have the 
debate about whethere we need PSD, and then discuss what a solution 
should look like.

Yours,

Joel

On 9/29/2024 10:16 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
>
> Then why not adopting that PSD proposal as the base for discussion? 
> And find out how it will require the draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr.
>
> Best,
>
> Tianran
>
> *From:*Joel Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 9:43 AM
> *To:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* mpls <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on 
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>
> So we should hold up the ISD draft for some proposal to appear?  The 
> one PSD proposal we have on the table does not require any changes to 
> the mna-hdr ISD draft.    That seems to request arbitrary delay from 
> the WG without justification.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
> On 9/29/2024 9:36 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
>
>     So the next step for the WG is to work out the PSD and see how ISD
>     and PSD can complement and be compatible.
>
>     It’s not the time to finalize draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr in hurry.
>
>     Especially when there is no hands on implementation.
>
>     Tianran
>
>     *From:*Joel Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>     *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 9:06 AM
>     *To:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc:* mpls <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on
>     draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>
>     If someone wants to put a proposal on the table for PSD that does
>     not require ISD, they can do so.  And the WG can, if the process
>     moves that far, consider that solution.  But, by definition, if
>     the solution does not use ISD then it has no impact on advancing
>     the mna-hdr draft solution for those cases which use ISD.  I still
>     do not see the coupling you are asserting.
>
>     In particular, while the requirements permit such a solution, they
>     do not mandate it.  Since we do not even have a proposal for how
>     to do PSD without ISD, it seems really confusing to be objecting
>     to advancing the mna-hdr draft on such a basis.
>
>     Yours,
>
>     Joel
>
>     On 9/29/2024 8:43 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
>
>         Hi Greg,
>
>         Please see below:
>
>         5.   Subject to the constraints in these requirements, a Network
>
>         Action solution MAY carry MNA information in-stack, post-stack,
>
>         or both in-stack and post-stack.
>
>         6.   Solution specifications MUST NOT require an implementation to
>
>         support in-stack ancillary data, unless the implementation
>
>         chooses to support an NA that uses in-stack ancillary data.
>
>         Tianran
>
>         *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>         *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 8:24 AM
>         *To:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Cc:* Tony Li <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>         Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>         mpls <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>; mpls-chairs
>         <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>         [e-mail]
>         *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on
>         draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>
>         Hi Tianran,
>
>         Please point me to the part of RFC 9613
>         <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9613/> that supports your
>         request.
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Greg
>
>         On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 4:44 PM Tianran Zhou
>         <zhoutianran=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>             The IPR poll for the two document did not hit the point.
>
>             The point is how can the MNA mechanism disable the ISD and
>             use PSD only.
>
>             The draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr need to resolve this.
>
>             Tianran
>
>             *From:*Tony Li [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf
>             Of *Tony Li
>             *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 12:13 AM
>             *To:* Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>
>             *Cc:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; Dongjie
>             (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Tarek Saad
>             <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>; mpls-chairs
>             <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>             *Subject:* Re: Working Group Last Call on
>             draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>
>             Hi Zafar,
>
>                 I am aware of the thread but all we hear is that
>                 chairs are discussing the responses and will share
>                 further update, “interest” vs. “consensus” debate, the
>                 chairs are discussing how to initiate the PSD debate,
>                 etc. There were 65 emails on the original PSD poll. I
>                 am not sure why we need another round of debate and
>                 what will be the nature of that debate. Why not just
>                 start WG adoption call and gauge the WG “consensus”.
>
>             That’s exactly what we’re doing. The process for doing
>             this begins with an IPR poll.
>
>             Nic started the IPR poll on draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex and
>             draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-dex on Sept 3.
>
>             https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/XU3Ycij6Oq2kGWi14k3eXmpdQvM/
>
>             https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/7NmJqyMHDairPxEn7PGxz99KNiI/
>
>             Tony
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
>             To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         mpls mailing list [e-mail]
>
>         To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]
>