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

[John Drake <[e-mail]>]

 Joel is absolutely correct.  I support moving  draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr forward.

    On Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 07:40:58 PM PDT, Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
  
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]] 
 Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 9:06 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)
   
 
 
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]] 
 Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 8:24 AM
 To: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
 Cc: Tony Li <[e-mail]>; Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>; mpls  <[e-mail]>; mpls-chairs <[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 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 to [e-mail] 
 
  _______________________________________________
mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]