Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-04

Rskesh,

I agree making it mpls generic. Actually looking at it is pretty close to that, with minor edits it is possible to read the references to SR as examples. 

We should move this discussion to the working group mailing list. 

Rakesh, 
Can send a mail to the list, outlining what we agreed to and ask for comments?

/Loa

Sent from my iPhone

> On 19 Jan 2021, at 05:52, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Stewart,
>  
> Thanks for the suggestion. Agree with making this generic to MPLS and not specific to SR-MPLS.
>  
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>  
>  
> From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, January 18, 2021 at 10:39 AM
> To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
> Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>, loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr@ietf.org <draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-04
> 
> Hi Mach
> 
> It is as much a question for the WG given that this is up for adoption.
> 
> In all other aspects MPLS-SR inherits everything from MPLS so why would it not do so here?
> 
> Also given that we want iOAM for SR why would we not want it for MPLS and associated technologies such as PW and VPN as well?
> 
> So my view is not to make a special case for SR and then have the complexity of introducing it to base MPLS, but instead solve this for MPLS and use it everywhere.
> 
> Is there something special about the SR case that I am missing here?
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> > On 12 Jan 2021, at 03:18, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Stewart,
> > 
> > I guess your questions are for the authors of the draft, I will let the authors to answer the questions :-)
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Mach
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 3:29 AM
> >> To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
> >> Cc: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>; Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>; Greg
> >> Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; Rakesh Gandhi
> >> (rgandhi) <rgandhi=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; mpls-chairs
> >> <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-04
> >> 
> >> I have a slightly more fundamental question.
> >> 
> >> Why are we specifying this for sr?
> >> 
> >> Surely we should specify it for MPLS  and have SR inherit that?
> >> 
> >> Also what happens if the MPLS payload is a PW or Detnet or something else
> >> defined to be immediately below the bottom label?
> >> 
> >> Stewart
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls