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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

I have not interpreted Option A as requiring a new MNA solution document
but allowing for a possibility of it. The main difference between Option A
and Option B, in my understanding, is the number of solutions that could be
standardized - only one (Option A) vs. one or more (Option B). Thus
statement, "I support Option B. I support one solution to be standardized
and I like it to be the solution X", appears to me as self-contradictory.
Also, since the DT is open, I don't see how our discussions exclude anyone
who follows discussions on the MPLS WG's mailing list and attends joint
PALS+MPLS+DetNet sessions at IETF meetings.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:52 AM tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> From: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <
> [e-mail]>
> Sent: 13 September 2022 13:16
>
> Hi Rakesh,
> on September 12th you've wrote:
> Hi WG Chairs,
>
> I support option (B) as progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr (that is
> well-thought of by the co-authors) as a single solution for MNA.
>
> I do not support option (A) as new authors from the open DT team to take
> pieces from the draft and submit a new document.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
> Could you help me and clarify whether you support Option A or Option B (I
> don't find any questions about which draft could progress, so let us keep
> our preferences outside for now and wait for the WG Chairs to navigate the
> WG through the process).
>
> <tp>
> I have a similar problem to the authors of the I-D draft-jags.
>
> I  saw option A as being handing over control to the DT to produce one
> solution for the WG to rubber stamp, which I see as unsatisfactory.  Even
> if the DT find just one solution which satisfies all the issues of the WG,
> I still want the WG to discuss alternatives and have the final word.
>
> My resolution of this was to opt  for B) which is still my view.  We want
> one solution in the end but it should be the WG and not the DT that takes
> the final decision.  I do not have a view - yet - as to whether draft-jags
> is the best outcome - I want the DT to come up with their best view first
> and then see.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 2:08 PM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> We support one solution for MNA.
> And we support progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr as that solution.
> And we do not support DT team bringing forward another solution.
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 1:57 AM
> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Tarek
> Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution
> Dear Jag, Rakesh, and Xiao Min,
> I feel confused. The way I understood the pool's question is whether the
> group supports standardizing a single solution document or whether each of
> proposed solutions can be standardized (WG Chairs, please correct me if I
> misunderstood your question). From your previous emails, it appears that
> you support the latter - possibly standardizing multiple data plane
> solutions. Could you please clarify. Also, I don't find in the poll
> question about which of the solutions, already proposed or to be proposed
> soon, to be standardized. It seems like being disciplined and following the
> scope of the questions will help us progress this work faster.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 12:34 AM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi=
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> Yes, one solution. And we support progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr
> as that solution.
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
>
> From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:53 PM
> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution
>
> Then we agree that we want only one solution.
>
> I read the poll as being agnostic on the question of what the one solution
> would look like.  Given that there are at least two solutions that seem to
> work (and are now quite similar) on the table, I would expect a fairly
> typical process for getting to one good solution.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
> On 9/12/2022 5:50 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Please see inline with <RG>..
>
> From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:41 PM
> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>,
> Tarek Saad <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:
> [e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution
>
> The phrasing in this sub-thread of messages seems a bit odd to me.
>
> Are you folks really saying you want to see two (or more) different
> solutions for MNA?  That seems highly undesirable.
>
> <RG> We are saying - progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr as a “single”
> MNA solution.
>
> <RG> Definitely not two or more different solutions for MNA.
>
> I read the poll as choosing between one solution and many solutions.  You
> seem to be saying you read the poll as being between crafting something new
> and having multiple solutions??
>
> <RG> We are saying - progressing one solution only, which is defined in
> draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
> On 9/12/2022 3:50 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
> Hi WG Chairs,
>
> I support option (B) as progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr (that is
> well-thought of by the co-authors) as a single solution for MNA.
>
> I do not support option (A) as new authors from the open DT team to take
> pieces from the draft and submit a new document.
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> From: mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on
> behalf of Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 19:50
> To: [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: [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)
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> mpls mailing list
>
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>