[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

If someone wants to put a proposal on the table for PSD that does not 
require ISD, they can do so.  And the WG can, if the process moves that 
far, consider that solution.  But, by definition, if the solution does 
not use ISD then it has no impact on advancing the mna-hdr draft 
solution for those cases which use ISD.  I still do not see the coupling 
you are asserting.

In particular, while the requirements permit such a solution, they do 
not mandate it.  Since we do not even have a proposal for how to do PSD 
without ISD, it seems really confusing to be objecting to advancing the 
mna-hdr draft on such a basis.

Yours,

Joel

On 9/29/2024 8:43 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Please see below:
>
> 5.   Subject to the constraints in these requirements, a Network
>
> Action solution MAY carry MNA information in-stack, post-stack,
>
> or both in-stack and post-stack.
>
> 6.   Solution specifications MUST NOT require an implementation to
>
> support in-stack ancillary data, unless the implementation
>
> chooses to support an NA that uses in-stack ancillary data.
>
> Tianran
>
> *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 8:24 AM
> *To:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Tony Li <[e-mail]>; Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>; 
> mpls <[e-mail]>; mpls-chairs <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on 
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>
> Hi Tianran,
>
> Please point me to the part of RFC 9613 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9613/> that supports your request.
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 4:44 PM Tianran Zhou 
> <zhoutianran=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     The IPR poll for the two document did not hit the point.
>
>     The point is how can the MNA mechanism disable the ISD and use PSD
>     only.
>
>     The draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr need to resolve this.
>
>     Tianran
>
>     *From:*Tony Li [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Tony Li
>     *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 12:13 AM
>     *To:* Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>
>     *Cc:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; Dongjie (Jimmy)
>     <[e-mail]>; Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>; mpls
>     <[e-mail]>; mpls-chairs <[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail]
>     *Subject:* Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
>     (2nd WG call)
>
>     Hi Zafar,
>
>         I am aware of the thread but all we hear is that chairs are
>         discussing the responses and will share further update,
>         “interest” vs. “consensus” debate, the chairs are discussing
>         how to initiate the PSD debate, etc. There were 65 emails on
>         the original PSD poll. I am not sure why we need another round
>         of debate and what will be the nature of that debate. Why not
>         just start WG adoption call and gauge the WG “consensus”.
>
>     That’s exactly what we’re doing. The process for doing this begins
>     with an IPR poll.
>
>     Nic started the IPR poll on draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex and
>     draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-dex on Sept 3.
>
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/XU3Ycij6Oq2kGWi14k3eXmpdQvM/
>
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/7NmJqyMHDairPxEn7PGxz99KNiI/
>
>     Tony
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]