Re: [mpls] Poll 1: ISD and PSD in the MNA Framework

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chairs and WG, 

My personal opinion is PSD is needed in the framework, whether ISD is needed is still under discussion. Since we have a use case document, we could use it to check whether ISD or PSD or both are needed in each case. 

And one comment I raised as part of the review of the mna framework is that, we need to understand and document the changes introduced by mna (both ISD and PSD) to the MPLS architecture, which include not only the changes to MPLS data plane encoding, but also the changes to MPLS forwarding behavior. That would be necessary before making this decision to such a widely deployed technology.

Best regards,
Jie

> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [mpls] Poll 1: ISD and PSD in the MNA Framework
> 
> MPLS working group and and the Open MPLS DT,
> 
> The working group chairs believe the current situation is:
> 
> The Framework document must be solution independent and say:
> 
> a packet may carry Ancillary Data using one or both of the following
> methods:
> 
>     (1) in-stack, and
> 
>     (2) post-stack.
> 
> It is up to the document specifying the Network Action to specify which
> method is to be used for which Ancillary Data.
> 
> Note, a Network Action may not require inclusion of Ancillary Data.
> 
> Is this the consensus of the working group? Please respond to the MPLS WG
> mail list.
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson
> for the Open DT wg chairs
> 
> --
> 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