Re: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators

Hi Bruno,
thank you for pointing that out to me. I recall our earlier discussion
about this, and I feel that I need to clarify my position:

   - draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id, by itself, does not
   address the MNA requirements listed in
   draft-ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements
   - to address the MNA requirements using ELI, one needs to
   use draft-jags-mpls-ext-hdr
   - draft-jags-mpls-ext-hdr is not backward compatible with RFC 6790 and
   RFC 8662.

I hope that makes my point clearer. I greatly appreciate your questions and
comments.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:44 AM <bruno.decraene@orange.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
>
>
> Extending the ELI as per draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id
> does not break RFC 6790 nor RFC8662.
>
> If you believe that it does, please cites the sentences from both
> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id and RFC/6790/8662 that
> would contradict each other or would be incompatible.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> --Bruno
>
>
>
> *From:* mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 31, 2022 4:44 PM
> *To:* Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
> *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; pals-chairs@ietf.org; DetNet
> Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying
> Network Action Indicators
>
>
>
> Dear Loa, MPLS WG Chairs, Open DT, et al.,
>
> I believe that re-using ELI to address the requirements listed in
> draft-ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements will definitely break implementations
> of RFC 6790 and RFC 8662. Thus I oppose re-using ELI to indicate the
> presence of an MNA in a packet. I think that the specifics of the mechanism
> indicating the presence of an MNA should be discussed separately from the
> framework document.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:21 PM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>
> MPLS Working Group, MPLS Open DT,
>
> The MPLS Network Actions (MNA) framework requires a method of indicating
> the presence of a Network Action and any Ancillary Data.
>
> Is the consensus of the working group that we do this by:
>
>    (1) allocating a new SPL for Network Action Indicators?
>
>    (2) re-purposing the ELI SPL?
>
>    (3) using some other method of indicating this such as making it an
>        additional property of an ordinary label?
>
> Please respond to the MPLS WG mail list.
>
> Loa Andersson
> for the Open DT wg chairs
>
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>
> Orange Restricted
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>