Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution

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

Hi Chairs and WG，

I also think what Bruno said (a single solution per feature) is a clear statement. This has been the approach we used for the specification of the ISD and PSD mechanisms respectively, and I believe they could progress independently with compatibility taken into consideration.

When there are multiple candidate solutions for the same feature (which is the current situation with ISD), analysis to the existing solutions would help the WG to understand the pros and cons of each solution, and if possible it is practical and more efficient to use the existing document(s) as the basis.

Best regards,
Jie

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 3:23 AM
To: [e-mail]; Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution

I am on the same page with Bruno here. What matters is the solution for ISD/PSD are compatible but if the documentation of one part is in doc A and the documentation for another part is in doc B I don’t care. It could be one doc or multiple, but what matters is the compatibility end2end.

From: mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 10:55
To: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution
Hi Tarek, chairs,

- I support having a single solution per feature.
- IMHO, the MNA problem space could be split into a set of rather independent features (e.g. ISD, PSD, Network Action 1 in PSD…) which could translate into multiple documents. And much probably, we would have more agility with multiple documents (one document for a (set of) feature(s)). compared to forcing per week synchronization between a larger set of people).
- E.g. looks to me that draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr could progress independently of e.g. draft.song-mpls-extension-header. And I support the progression of draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr
- I think the work should be done by the WG (rather than the DT). However, if we have multiple solutions for a given feature, the DT perform the analysis to help the WG form its decision.

I’m not sure that the above maps to either A or B. In particular I feel that “solution” or “unified solution” could be understood differently, depending on whether the problem space is sub-divided ala divide-and-conquer, or not.

Regards,
--Bruno



Orange Restricted
From: mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Tarek Saad
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 8:50 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution

Dear MPLS WG and MPLS Open DT,

Over the past months, the MPLS Open DT has reviewed several proposals for the packet encodings for the MNA solution.
A compilation of the multiple solutions brought forward is present at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/mpls/wiki/MNADocumnets.

We believe that currently there are two alternative ways to progress the MNA solution.
One of them requires a single unified solution, and the other allows for individual solutions to progress independently.
We expect any unified solution to document the pieces from the presented solutions that are discussed and agreed upon in the weekly MPLS Open DT meeting.
The co-chairs for the working groups hosting the Open MPLS DT are polling the WG on their preference to move forward.
Please respond with either:
    A) “I support the MPLS Open DT bringing forward a single unified solution"
    OR
    B) “I support progressing the individual solution(s) independently"

We will allow this poll to run for two weeks (ending on Sept 19th).

Regards,
Tarek (for the MPLS Open DT co-chairs)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.