Re: [mpls] Update to the bullets on the first page of my review of draft-song-mpls-extension-header-09

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

This is fine.  Should we also add that the definition of a network action MUST specify its interaction with all other currently defined network actions?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 5, 2022, at 11:44 AM, Tony Li <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Loa,
> 
> 
>> but we do need a deterministic, specified order of operations.
>> 
>> agreed, what I wonder is if we can have for example a processing order of NA1(psd)->NA2(isd)->N3(psd)?
> 
> 
> Certainly.  For example, the evaluation order could be based on the numeric values assigned in the registry.
> 
> 
>> If we can, doesn't have to be captured in requirements, framework and solution specifications?
> 
> 
> I think that solution specification needs to give the order for the solution.
> 
> Since the framework document has no idea what ordering the solution might want to take, and there are several orderings that are possible, it seems like it is not the place of the framework document to specify the ordering.  Thus, the only thing that the framework document should say is that a solution should give us a deterministic, explicit order.
> 
> To be more specific, I propose adding the following text to the framework draft:
> 
>        A solution MUST specify a deterministic order for processing each of the Network Actions in the packet.
> 
> Comments? Tweaks?
> 
> Tony
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HOZ4-BB2V8VN0Av4RZgmvOr3tH586O9A24-Aym4pfYvu_RG4LgGIxKA0VEu2D7VAwg6jploqrvuOYsQP$