Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk-01

Tony Li <> Sat, 28 May 2022 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C73BC1595E6; Sat, 28 May 2022 09:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mnvfoE3dd--1; Sat, 28 May 2022 09:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1990DC159827; Sat, 28 May 2022 09:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y199so6925775pfb.9; Sat, 28 May 2022 09:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=hlW4GaZ2afScR7PyDLYETLtNgawqyFvPNYhLMBy5q6o=; b=WNab++SSC5vG7xbMrndQpCYldlXu6cnrUmYwIznLEuytoMTRfigXbvPQqvSaiwlIsH uFgTF2+UE5FnsYJFbFF52Y26fuMwWkJyEnrdl/+SZN7n2WujMBuOHxzIFzBl0Qcj/hoK 29WWIcNT0rzYxiAn7SiZPvFqAibphO7ZLtf73/gh1ZK+mBCSdB0VzaWgVE75y6KRaz8e lPwqFAktU1aRLiX+I3kEuMM1fVYMpOVcai1hBaIRncnONO0pPnG6Rdcricm71OV0RntJ WtYAjh+iLPHVlXVsIi4abt2MId13d9aG/kP4aU1sxUFu6Rj02jjNiYgxqdOye2VxjMGI xLig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=hlW4GaZ2afScR7PyDLYETLtNgawqyFvPNYhLMBy5q6o=; b=JUYwZSu1dhS05QhDF1mOuNkrQEtyV9QnGm9f8u9PJTM19ZYpIbiqyboBemArjSdgFT r+RyPWbAhA02+T+EPd0deZJN8w/UeRuqurIw7suTc3DH2kxMSqGmGgwOxvIFj6R18ySs CaQyGaO1wVEo8V/P8OY36/ZQoZhI734TT5q0ijtwQbtqRUvWX4ukdoIiA4Jnmp/KCe4c +h/O4sFCBsE4WkqbmW1g9uqVaD6csWq9xyi079rLsbRBAwwlvmvSY+42Dn1cqJeVSx6J cxopE1g/E/zbOjXejlbmD9Sigy5P9xXpFIFWy7vhQfInk2+gghIBhCPAZXQVf0qFcDjR K/Zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530PaN5C0p/8uE6BK45tDGJd3ZLv0kG5wsNzuoYXockYAI8HHuzE AH+O6RXiTEgmINSM21dIX7w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzyedr19KIBG2Nn8QUF2z5+PfH62pqOa3QoB0ir0Q6fIt2kgLNTW5TtwRoV/gT8YVnEvcaADA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1d1d:b0:518:421c:b65e with SMTP id a29-20020a056a001d1d00b00518421cb65emr46312363pfx.43.1653756668153; Sat, 28 May 2022 09:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id y129-20020a626487000000b0050dc76281b5sm5783416pfb.143.2022. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 28 May 2022 09:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <>
From: Tony Li <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6293F7C1-EA29-44FA-9D17-834DE4F91E93"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.\))
Date: Sat, 28 May 2022 09:51:06 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 May 2022 16:51:13 -0000

Hi Jimmy,

> 1.      Concepts and terminologies
> -        Network Action vs forwarding action. Since this document introduces the concept “network actions”, and it says network action is more general than forwarding action, I’m not sure the concept “forwarding action” needs to be defined here, actually it is only mentioned in the introduction. I’d suggest to just introduce one new concept (network action) instead of two.

Simply repeating yourself is not constructive.

> -        Ancillary data. The major question is: are the network actions without further parameters considered as ancillary data? This was recorded as one of the comments to the requirement document, and this document shows that inconsistency understanding of this basic concept could result in different interpretation of other terminologies. Thus I’d suggest the DT and the WG to have further review and discussion about the definition and the scope of ancillary data. 

A network action is an abstract concept, so it is never considered data.  This is why we have Network Action Indicators.  NAI are not ancillary data.

> -        Network Action Sub-stack Indicator (NSI) and MNA label. These terms are used to refer to the indicator of the network action sub-stack. However, there is no clear text about whether they can indicate the existence of PSD or not. In the framework a general term for the indicator of the ancillary data (either ISD or PSD) is needed.

That’s because they’re orthogonal to PSD.  The indication of PSD is an NAI for a network action that requires PSD.  Similarly, the indication of ISD is an NAI for a network action that requires ISD.

> 2.      Considerations about ISD and PSD in the framework
> According to the recent DT and mail list discussion, it seems the consensus is that the framework and solution need to include the mechanism for carrying PSD. Whether ISD is needed in the framework and the specific solutions is still under discussion. Thus it is suggested the framework document align with the DT’s discussion on this point: have some text to indicate that PSD is the necessary component of the framework. For the text about ISD, it is suggested to indicate ISD is an optional component, and for some solutions ISD may not be used.

PSD is not required in every packet.  A solution that may chooses to support network actions that require PSD.  However, we also have solutions (e.g., Bruno’s) that choose NOT to support PSD.

The framework currently requires that NAI appear in stack.  I have sent a request to the mailing list (below) to see if the group would be willing to generalize this, but to date, only John Drake has responded.  You have responded in this email, but you have not given a clear answer.

> 3.      Changes to MPLS forwarding/processing
> The potential changes introduced by MNA to MPLS architecture is not only in the data plane encoding, but also in the forwarding and processing behaviors. This is especially the case for the processing of the ISD data. IMO this is one of the most important things the framework should cover. There is a placeholder section on the development of MPLS forwarding model, the processing of the indicator, the ISD and/or PSD data based on MPLS forwarding model needs to be specified.

Again, repetition does not improve understanding. 

The section on the MPLS forwarding model is currently part of the editorial attic.  IMHO, it adds no value and will be discarded.

We can expect a solution to describe how its particular encoding is to be processed. This is not something that can be dealt with by the framework.  

As of right now, there are no architectural bounds on a network action. If someone wants to define a network action to compute the Nth digit of pi, that’s 100% acceptable.

> 4.      Incorporation of related existing work
> One of the comments I made is that draft-song-mpls-eh-indicator describes the alternatives of the indicator of the extension header. Please note that most of that text is about general analysis and comparison, and is not specific to any solution (i.e. not PSD only). Thus incorporation of such text would be helpful to this framework document.

Again, the framework is not an analysis or survey document.


> Another existing work which may be incorporated is draft-andersson-mpls-eh-architecture, which describes the architecture of MPLS extension header. Some of the text in that document may be reused for the description of the PSD part, and some text may even be generic for both ISD and PSD. 
> Hope this helps.
> Best regards,
> Jie
>   <>
> From: Tony Li [ <>] On Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 1:50 AM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) < <>>
> Cc: <>; <>
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk-01
> Hi Jimmy,
> Thank you for your comments.  I’ve replied to each and every one of them.  As you commented inside of a Word document, I’ve replied in kind.  Please see the attached document.
> I have made a number of the changes that you’ve suggested.  I will send a separate post to the list with the updated document and a diff.
> Many of the changes that you suggested hinge on a single question which you did not raise directly.  That question should have the input of the broader group, so I’ll raise it explicitly now:
>         Currently the framework document implicitly precludes some of the mechanisms found in draft-song-mpls-eh-indicator.  
>         Should the framework draft be broadened to encompass this draft?
> Speaking personally (co-author hat off), I don’t see an architectural reason to disagree. Please don’t take this as support of the draft.  I still believe that this is a sub-optimal approach, but could it work architecturally?  I have to say that yes, it could, and thus the framework draft could and should be broadened to encompass this.  
> If the group agrees with this, the changes to implement this are minimal and straightforward.
> Could I please get input from the group?
> Regards,
> Tony
> > On May 25, 2022, at 7:34 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) < <>> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear authors, 
> > 
> > Thanks for the effort in organizing and updating this document. I've reviewed the current version and have a number of comments and suggestions. 
> > 
> > In my view, the most important thing for this framework document is to describe the possible changes introduced to the MPLS architecture, the MPLS data plane encoding, and the processing behaviors of the LSRs. 
> > 
> > Please find the attached file for the details of my review notes. 
> > 
> > Hope it helps and looking forward to your feedback. 
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Jie
> > <draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk-01_Jie Dong_0525.docx>