Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Not rejecting or applauding this proposal yet,
but would like to see a motivation/justification.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 06:22:12AM +0800, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Loa,
> 
> many thanks to all who contributed to the text. I have a suggestion and a comment to the following sentence:
> 
> 
> GAL/GACH will only be an OAM or instrumentation tool and will not be used to carry meta-data with user-traffic.
> 
> As I understand how GAL/G-ACh (and ACH in PWs) have been used, I think that by OAM, we mean active OAM (per RFC 7799 classification of OAM measurement methods). I believe that it would be helpful to explicitly refer here to the active OAM and differentiate from, for example, IAOM, which is classified as a hybrid OAM method.
> 
> And to my comment. In PWs, using GAL is optional in PWs, MPLS-TP, and non-MPLS-TP (RFC 6423), and ACH can be used without GAL. It has been understood that all G-ACh channel types are also applicable to PW ACH (and vice versa). Let us be mindful of that when discussing the future use of GAL/G-ACh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Greg Mirsky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sr. Standardization Expert
> 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E: [e-mail] 
> www.zte.com.cn
> 
> 
> 
> Original Mail
> 
> 
> 
> Sender: LoaAndersson
> To: [e-mail];
> CC: [e-mail];[e-mail];DetNet Chairs;
> Date: 2021/08/05 07:52
> Subject: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators
> 
> 
> Working Group, MPLS Open DT,
>  
> The week before IETF 111 the Open DT met and agreed upon a text on  
> "indicators". The terminology we use is that somewhere in the label  
> stack there is an indicator tell the processing node that a specific  
> packet needs a certain set of Forwarding Actions, for example some iOAM  
> action might be required. To support the forwarding action there is  
> often ancillary data with the packet.
>  
> The text the DT produced is about the indicators, a companion text on  
> ancillary data will follow.
>  
> The text was discussed in the Joint meeting and reported to the MPLS  
> working group at IETF 111. The Open DT itself can only propose, the text  
> is therefore now sent out to the working group for review and consensus  
> call.
>  
> The proposed text is found at:
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/mpls/wiki/2021-07-22-agenda
>  
> Please review the proposed text and comment on the MPLS wg mailing list  
> ([e-mail]).
>  
> We plan to keep the consensus call open until 2021-08-20.
>  
> /Loa
> Open DT Co-ordinator / MPLS wg co-chair
>  
>  
> --  
>  
> 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




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


-- 
---
[e-mail]