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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zafar,
when saying "What will increase the WG confidence", and "A large number of
WG members from different affiliations" are speaking as a participant or in
some other capacity?

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 4:52 PM Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Joel,
>
>
>
> I agree with you that no one can claim that any proposal is perfect.
>
> What will increase the WG confidence is interop between at least two
> hardware implementations.
>
> A large number of WG members from different affiliations are not
> comfortable due to a lack of interop testing.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Regards … Zafar
>
>
>
> *From: *jmh.direct <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 7:38 PM
> *To: *Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>, Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>,
> Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>
> The email I was responding to specifically suggested using an extended
> special purpose label, snd then switching to a base label when we moved to
> PS.
>
> Yours,.Joel
>
>
>
> PS I doubt anyone claims that any proposal is perfect.  But.such hyperbole
> is common from all sides in this discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
> From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>
>
> Date: 10/8/24 7:27 PM (GMT-05:00)
>
> To: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>, Stewart Bryant <
> [e-mail]>
>
> Cc: [e-mail], "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>
>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
> (2nd WG call)
>
>
>
> Hi Joel
>
>
>
> Re: asking folks to respin behavior that may be embedded in  ASIC chips is
> both a major imposition and a significant backwards compatibility problem.
>
>
>
> What I hear from the proponent of the proposal is that it is flawless for
> any future implementation, extension, and interop.
>
> If the proponent’s claims are true, then why there be a need to change the
> experimental RFC? It will be just a tag change.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Regards … Zafar
>
>
>
> *From: *Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Monday, October 7, 2024 at 10:43 AM
> *To: *Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
> (2nd WG call)
>
> I understand the driver for suggesting experimental.  However, I am
> little concerned by this approach.  This forwarding is presumably
> typically supported in hardware.  While some hardware will have the
> identification adjustable, it does not seem at all clear that all, or
> even most, hardware will have that flexibility.   Asking implementors to
> respin software is something we do all the time, and is quite
> reasonable.  But asking folks to respin behavior that may be embedded in
> ASIC chips is both a major imposition and a significant backwards
> compatibility problem.
>
> thus, while I sympathize with the suggest, I think we really need to
> publish this draft promptly as a Proposed Standard if we expect folks to
> implement it.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
>
> On 10/7/2024 10:31 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> > I have been thinking the same.
> >
> > Hop by hop changes of this magnitude are a big deal.
> >
> > The safest option would be to run it as experimental protocol on an
> ESPL. That way we can learn more about the design and its properties and if
> we need to make a change we have plenty more ESPLs
> >
> > If the experiment succeeds we can move to PS with a BSPL.
> >
> > Stewart
> >
> >> On 7 Oct 2024, at 10:13 AM, IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear MPLS WG,
> >>
> >> Given the nature of the changes to the MPLS architecture for supporting
> ISD in the data-plane, and the various concerns that have raised on the
> list, I believe that this document should be on the experimental track.
> >>
> >> I do not support publishing this document on standards track.
> >>
> >> Thx,
> >>
> >> Ice.
> >>
> >>> On 24 Sep 2024, at 15:25, Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear WG,
> >>>
> >>> This email starts a two-week Working Group last call for
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr. This is the 2nd WG last call for this document.
> >>> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are
> opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your
> concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest
> version, and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review
> comments and nits are most welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Please send your comments to the mpls WG mailing list ([e-mail])
> >>> If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs.
> >>>
> >>> Note, currently there are 5 IPR disclosures against this document at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
> >>>
> >>> This poll runs until October 8, 2024.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
>