Re: [mpls] Update to the bullets on the first page of my review of draft-song-mpls-extension-header-09

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony,

> Each Network Action must specify how it interacts with all other
previously defined Network Actions.

So what happens if such definition is in odds with any previously defined
action ?

How are you going to practically assure that original intention of
previously defined action(s) are still maintained ?

I am afraid the only option here is to allow complete action
independence and leave the sequencing and overlap to the operator to decide
how it should be resolved by local ordering or tie breaking.

Thx,
R.


On Mon, 5 Sept 2022 at 19:13, Tony Li <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> John,
>
>  Should we also add that the definition of a network action MUST specify
> its interaction with all other currently defined network actions?
>
>
>
> You want deterministic semantics too? :-)
>
> I can live with that.  Revised text:
>
> For MNA to be consistent across implementations and predictable
> in operational environments, its semantics need to be entirely predictable.
> A solution MUST specify a deterministic order for processing each of the
> Network Actions in a packet. Each Network Action must specify how it
> interacts with all other previously defined Network Actions.
>
>
> Tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>