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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>
Sent: 07 September 2022 16:43

Hi Tarek,

For B), do you mean progressing and eventually standardizing multiple incompatible solutions solving the same problem?
I don’t think anybody wants to go that way.
I think the way forward is to evaluate the existing proposals and eventually form a best unified solution.

<tp>

Well yes, I agree so far. but the question is, who does the work?

What option A says is that is all up to the DT and the WG can sit back and do nothing until it is time to rubber stamp whatever the DT comes up with.   As I said separately, there is no guarantee that the DT will find a solution that satisfies everyone so I am comfortable with B) since it allows the DT to try and find a single solution and fail, and it keeps the WG engaged and taking responsibility for the outcome.  A is seductive, sit back and let the others do the work,  but not necessarily the right answer.

Tom Petch

If this is what A) means, I support it.

<tp>

Well yes

Regards,
Haoyu

From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tarek Saad
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 5:03 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; John E Drake <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution

Hi Jie,

You may have misunderstood my clarification.
Just to remove any confusion, I’ll ask to stick to the original version of the poll answers which are listed below. Those are what the chairs reviewed during our sync up meeting.

    A) “I support the MPLS Open DT bringing forward a single unified solution"
    OR
    B) “I support progressing the individual solution(s) independently"

Regards,
Tarek


From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 9:48 PM
To: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [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: RE: Poll on way forward for MNA solution
Hi Tarek,

Thanks for your clarification. While my reading of the two options listed in this clarification are different from the two options in the poll.

The original poll is about whether the WG should allow to progress one single solution or multiple solutions for MNA.

This clarification mail is talking about how the WG/DT produces one single solution.  Either creating a new document to combine the different features (ISD, PSD, etc.) from the existing documents, or move forward the different features (ISD, PSD, etc.) in separate existing documents in parallel. IMO both approaches could result in a single complete solution.

Thus it would be necessary for the chairs to clarify what this poll really is about.

Best regards,
Jie

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tarek Saad
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 4:11 AM
To: John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution

Thanks, John, for responding to the poll.

Nope, nothing covered in fine print there..

A) will allow Open DT to collaborate on the single unified solution in a new document (consequently, aborting individual documents/solutions)
B) will allow features of the MNA solution (as present in some of current proposals) to progress independently.

Regards,
Tarek


From: John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 3:32 PM
To: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [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: RE: Poll on way forward for MNA solution
Tarek,

I support A).  (Is this a trick question?)

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Tarek Saad
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 2:50 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [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

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

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<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fmpls%2Fwiki%2FMNADocumnets__%3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Dfvl0984HcYdOJHJZPmFsLUCzY3oC_ev_CkBwZ-68tsxKXnVMejCmWVyK8_VZ_M8dH90qFEcU0IVSDfikg%24&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7Cf7b1f70a0fe54946b72b08da90c8f818%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637981490096374918%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2cdDAYpZY6HWF2MvYlhir9FMMnK0%2Bt%2FMujv8TIHuQrA%3D&reserved=0>.

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)