Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr draft updates

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

These changes look good to me.

As this is now a WG document, we need to have consensus to publish these changes.  I would ask that the WG chairs start the polling process.

Regards,
Tony


> On Aug 30, 2023, at 10:37 AM, Jaganbabu Rajamanickam <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Everyone,
>   I have updated the RLD specific comments from Tony and Greg.
>  I am sending the latest draft and the diff.
> 
> Thanx,
> Jags
> 
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jaganbabu Rajamanickam <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Hello Greg,
>> 
>>    Thanks for the review.
>> 
>>    We could add the text on RLD which you have suggested.
>> 
>>    For MSD, How about the below text in section "9.1 - Encapsulating Node Responsibilities".
>> 
>>    The path computation needs to know the Maximum SID Depth (MSD)
>>    that can be imposed at the ingress node of a given SR path [RFC8664].
>>    This ensures that the label stack depth of a computed path does not
>>    exceed the maximum number of labels (i.e., MSD) the node is capable of imposing.
>>    The MSD needs to include the MNA Sub-Stacks to be added.
>> 
>> Thanx,
>> Jags
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 2:52 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> Hi Jags,
>>> thank you for sharing the updates. I have a couple of questions about RLD. 
>>> The updated draft presents RLD as being a newly defined term introduced in this draft. Although RLD might be related to ERLD-MSD defined in RFC 9088, that is okay if the draft provides a clear definition of the new term. Section 7, in my understanding, describes the usage of RLD but is rather short on defining it. Would the following text be acceptable:
>>> Readable Label Depth is defined as the number of labels, starting from the top of the stack, a router can read in an MPLS packet received on its incoming interface(s).
>>> It looks like RLD is presented as a system-wide parameter. I think that it might be more accurate to consider RLD per ingress interface (see the proposed definition of RLD above).
>>> Also, do the Editors find it helpful to note that the Base MPLS Imposition MSD affects the imposition of the label stack that includes MNA?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:29 AM Jaganbabu Rajamanickam (jrajaman) <jrajaman=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>> 
>>>>    Attaching new attachments and resending.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thanx,
>>>> 
>>>> Jags
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: Jaganbabu Rajamanickam <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:21 PM
>>>> To: mpls <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> Cc: mpls-chairs <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> Subject: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr draft updates
>>>> 
>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>> 
>>>>    Based on the WG discussion and comments, we have updated the draft. I am attaching the latest draft and the diff before publishing. Please take a look and provide feedback.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Below are the updates made to the draft.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Define and use term RLD (Readable Label Depth)
>>>> Add MNA Label in Figure 1
>>>> Packet format to show bits 0 – 9
>>>> Reserved bits are marked as MUST be zero and ignored on receipt
>>>> Section 7 to clarify PHP node behaviour
>>>> Section 7.1 added on “actions on node pushing labels”
>>>> Deleted stale section of 13.3 on “Network Actions Flags with Ancillary Data”
>>>> Designated Editors
>>>> Informational References (both moved from normative)
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thanx,
>>>> 
>>>> Jags
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> <draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-03.txt><draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-03.diff.html>_______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls