Re: [mpls] MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements

Another comment on ISD and PSD.

>From an parity point of view as far as use cases and drawing from IPv6 and
it’s extensibility with extension headers (EH) and HBH header which has
similarities to topmost transport label extensibility use case of ISD with
HBH solutions and the DOH (Destination Options Header) which has
similarities to extending the 2nd level label stack bottom of stack with
PSD use case E2E solutions.

So to me it does make sense to keep both ISD and PSD in scope for the
solution flexibility reasons.

Thanks

Gyan

On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 11:44 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Loa
>
> I have reviewed the latest version of the draft and the draft is well
> written and I agree that both ISD and PSD should be included in the
> requirements draft.
>
> As far as publication I don’t see any harm in publication as it has a lot
> of good information history on requirements as the solution space develops.
>
> I agree with the comments made my Adrian on the formatting and nits.
>
> Just a comment of existing solution and existence and examples of ISD and
> PSD that exist today.  So RFC 6790 Entropy label and RFC 8662 SR-MPLS
> Entropy label are good examples of ISD.
>
> RFC 8660 SR-MPLS over v4 or v6 data plane would be examples of ISD that
> exists today.  SR-MPLS extends the traditional label stack RFC 3032 label
> stack encoding to support stacking of topological labels at the transport
> layer along with ELI,EL encoding great example of ISD.
>
> For the 2 use case groupings HBH and E2E we have a few existing data
> solutions for HBH using ISD above, but I can’t think of any that use PSD
> for E2E, however I think keeping E2E in scope as drafts solutions are
> progressed makes the extensibility of the architecture flexible for
> designers in the future.  I think PSD is forward looking and should be kept
> in scope as solutions are developed.
>
> Thank you
>
> Gyan
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 4:34 PM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Working Group,
>>
>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call on
>> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-07.
>>
>> Please send your comments to the MPLS WG mailing list (mpls@ietf.org).
>>
>> There are no IPR disclosures against this document.
>>
>> All the authors (no contributors on this document) have stated on the
>> working group mailing list that they are not aware of any IPRs that
>> relates to this document.
>>
>> This working group last call ends October 4, 2023.
>>
>>
>> /Loa
>> for the MPLS wg chairs
>>
>> --
>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
>> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>