IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] Re: Poll: IOAM and PSD

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 25 August 2024 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8741C14F5ED; Sun, 25 Aug 2024 04:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TwYUrPPOO46B; Sun, 25 Aug 2024 04:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv.pi.nu (srv.pi.nu [46.246.39.30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6FFC14F73E; Sun, 25 Aug 2024 04:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <afd92389-fec9-4213-b7e7-3d565c702e7e@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 19:59:05 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
References: <F78CB19B-2880-48AB-99CE-D46280014A87@tony.li> <DS0PR19MB6501C2C805B65C532B46263FFC872@DS0PR19MB6501.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <71045c16-caa6-4875-a2c4-c50d0484eda1@pi.nu> <393bd232-bac1-44c6-9cae-3c087bd692c7@pi.nu> <AA32CC75-78DF-4B1F-95F1-ECA76FDC2686@tony.li>
Content-Language: sv, en-GB
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <AA32CC75-78DF-4B1F-95F1-ECA76FDC2686@tony.li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: BLHQMLSJNCIWM3AVWBD7LPXYX6WRCMZJ
X-Message-ID-Hash: BLHQMLSJNCIWM3AVWBD7LPXYX6WRCMZJ
X-MailFrom: loa@pi.nu
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mpls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [mpls] Re: Poll: IOAM and PSD
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/O-PhbmVsXEO_zHJN9IVDAHXfzLk>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mpls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mpls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mpls-leave@ietf.org>

Tony,

It seem to me that the decision you are looking for are moot, the poll 
you started indicate a strong interest in implementing "the IOAM 
passport method with the Pre-allocated option defined in RFC 9197" and 
the "post card method with direct-export option" as described in RFC 
9326. This can hardly be done without PSD.

/Loa

Den 19/08/2024 kl. 23:09, skrev Tony Li:
> I am trying to make progress in a step-wise fashion.
>
> Before doing a WGAP on that document, it would make sense for the WG to decide whether or not it needs a PSD solution.

-- 
Loa Andersson
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting
loa@pi.nu
loa.pi.nu.@gmail.com

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status