Re: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt - "by default"

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I find myself quite confused by the proposal to add "(by default)" to 
requirement 7.  I can't figure out what this would mean, what it is 
trying to permit or require, or why we would add it.    As such, I fear 
that the change would make things confusing for readers.

Yours,

Joel

On 2/8/2024 2:50 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Matthew and authors for the update, and thanks Adrian for the 
> timely notice before the holiday:)
>
> I checked the new version, it solves some of my previous comments. 
> Please find some remaining and new comments below:
>
> 1.The document used several terms to refer to MNA related solutions or 
> specifications:
>
> 1)MNA solution
>
> 2)MNA solution specification
>
> 3)MNA specification
>
> 4)NAI specification  (in requirement 24)
>
> 5)Solutions (in requirement 42)
>
> My feeling is they have different scopes, while different people may 
> have different understandings about them. Thus for clarity it is 
> suggested to only use two terms consistently: one is for the general 
> MNA solution (the base for all network actions), and the other is for 
> the specification of a specific network action.
>
> 2.In the end of section 3, there is one sentence talking about the 
> size of post-stack ancillary data. Do we also need some similar text 
> about the size of ancillary data carried in-stack in the same paragraph?
>
> 3.Several requirements In section 3.4 (e.g. 25, 28, 33, 36, 37) are 
> not just about the NAI operation, but also the processing of the 
> network action and ancillary data. Not sure whether they need to be 
> moved to other sections?
>
> 4.Requirement 6 and 7, I agree with Haoyu that it is better to add “by 
> default” to the text.
>
> 5.Requirement 12, suggest to change it to:
>
> “The design of any MNA solution MUST NOT expose information that is 
> not already exposed to the PE to the LSRs”.
>
> 6.Requirement 20, now I can understand the text here does not preclude 
> new operations being introduced when necessary. While my current 
> question is, is this requirement only about the network action 
> indicators, does it also include the insertion, parsing and processing 
> of the associated ancillary data?
>
> 7.Requirement 34, suggest to change “indictors” to NAIs. And it is not 
> quite clear what this requirement is about. Is it about the encoding 
> or the processing of NAI,  or both?
>
> 8.Requirement 39, this is one comment I made in pervious review: Do we 
> allow some NAIs be carried in-stack, and the rest be carried 
> post-stack? And for each specific NAI, where it should be carried may 
> be described in the corresponding network action specification.
>
> 9.Requirement 43 talks about “limiting the quantity of in-stack 
> ancillary data”. Suggest to add another requirement about the limit of 
> in-stack ancillary data as below:
>
> For MNA use cases in which the quantity or size of ancillary data 
> exceeds the limit of the in-stack ancillary data, MNA solutions SHOULD 
> place such ancillary data as post-stack.
>
> 10.Requirement 44, the first half is a requirement on NAI, the second 
> half is the requirement on ancillary data. Suggest to split it and 
> move the first half to section 3.4.
>
> 11.Requirement 47, is this requirement specific to in-stack data or 
> ancillary data in general?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
> *From:*Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2024 1:10 AM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; 'Haoyu Song' 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* 'Matthew Bocci (Nokia' 
> <matthew.bocci=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt
>
> Thanks for this, Matthew.
>
> Jie and Haoyu, if you get a chance before the New Year holiday, it 
> would be **really** helpful if you could let Matthew know whether you 
> still have concerns resulting from your previous comments, or if 
> Matthew has addressed them with changes to the current revision.
>
> If we are all good, then a 2^nd WGLC can be run (with plenty of time 
> for review and comments after New Year).
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> *From:*mpls <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
> *Sent:* 07 February 2024 15:14
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt
>
> All
>
> I have just posted an updated draft, hopefully addressing Tony’s 
> comments below.
>
> There were some outstanding comments from Jie and Haoyu, but I think 
> that these may have been addressed to some extent by some of the 
> resolutions to the other comments. Please could you review the draft 
> and let me know if you still have outstanding comments.
>
> Thanks
>
> Matthew
>
> *From: *mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of 
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 15:07
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt
>
>
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when 
> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for 
> additional information.
>
>
>
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt is now 
> available. It is
> a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) WG of the IETF.
>
>    Title:   Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network Actions
>    Authors: Matthew Bocci
>             Stewart Bryant
>             John Drake
>    Name:    draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10.txt
>    Pages:   11
>    Dates:   2024-02-07
>
> Abstract:
>
>    This document specifies requirements for the development of MPLS
>    network actions which affect the forwarding or other processing of
>    MPLS packets.  These requirements are informed by a number of
>    proposals for additions to the MPLS information in the labeled packet
>    to allow such actions to be performed, either by a transit or
>    terminating LSR (i.e. the LER).
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements/
>
> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-10
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls