[mpls] Re: 答复: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Aijun,

Sorry for the late reply. I have been otherwise occupied.

See inline please.

Den 29/09/2024 kl. 04:55, skrev Aijun Wang:
> Hi, All:
> 
> After reviewing the discussions on this topic on the list, my 
> suggestions for the WGLC of the mentioned document are the followings:

We are very much on the same page, though I have a couple small comments.

> 
> 1)Because such approach is one major update to the traditional MPLS 
> functions, before moving this document forward, it is better to make the 
> design more robust and challengeable with the help of different 
> implementations

I agree that it is important to take the input we can get from 
implementations. I'm quite surprised by the perceived resistance for the 
WG chair that has spoken up on this. Taking the lessons we can from 
existing implementations has been there for MPLS Standard Track RFCs, 
since the start.

However we have never wanted to make it a formal criteria, since we very 
quickly learnt that vendors are extremely reluctant to respond to 
implementation polls-
> 
> 2)Based on the poll responses about "IOAM and PSD", the PSD based 
> solution is more suitable for the IOAM related scenarios. It is better 
> to define and assign the "R" bit in LSE format B as "P" bit for PSD 
> based solution.

I agree with this sentiment, though I think that there are more to this 
issue.

I'm not sure that we only have two ways of indicating the presence of 
PSD in an MPLS packet, I believe we should step back and look at this again.

There is one more thing, I've said several times. The P-flag and the PSD 
Present Op Code and the indicating the offset are by definition ISD, and 
should go in the ISD draft.

On the people supporting progressing the draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr, say 
that already today we know how the presence of PSD should be specified, 
so based on their arguments I see no  reason to wait.

> 
> 3)It's time to make the WG adopt call for the PSD proposal. After 
> careful reviewing of the PSD by the WG, the current ISD draft can be 
> refined, to make the output of the community more sustainable.

I agree, I hope this will happen as part of the long awaited WGAP for 
draft-jags-mpls-psmna-hdr. It is now more than 3 months since Jags asked 
for the WGAP for the draft. The only thing that have happened is that 
one of the chairs (hat off) has informed the WG that he is "opposed" to 
running the WGAP, regardless of that "the poll" did show that there is a 
enough people wanting and prepared to work on the PSD solution.
> 
> 4)It is no hurry to finalize the MNA related documents. There is the 
> equivalent IPv6 based solutions, which is more easier to span the 
> different domains(all controlled by one service provider). Is there any 
> analysis for the pros and cons of these two solutions(MNA vs IPv6 based 
> solutions)?

I think that the IPv6 based solutions are more or less of equivalent 
complexity as compared to MPLS solutions.

That said, you are right, there is no need to rush any solution through 
a WGLC and to a publication request, especially since the solutions are 
not yet hammered out.

/Loa

PS

I'm aware of the the 2nd WGLC is closed, but I felt that I owed Aijun a 
response.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Aijun Wang
> 
> China Telecom
> 
> *发件人:*[e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] *代表 *Tarek Saad
> *发送时间:*2024年9月24日21:25
> *收件人:*[e-mail]
> *抄送:*MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-mpls-mna- 
> [e-mail]
> *主题:*[mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG 
> call)
> 
> Dear WG,
> 
> This email starts a two-week Working Group last call for draft-ietf- 
> mpls-mna-hdr <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr/ 
>  >. This is the 2^nd WG last call for this document.
> 
> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are 
> opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your 
> concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the 
> latest version, and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As 
> always, review comments and nits are most welcome.
> 
> Please send your comments to the mpls WG mailing list ([e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>).
> 
> If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs.
> 
> Note, currently there are 5 IPR disclosures against this document at 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf- 
> mpls-mna-hdr <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/? 
> submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr>
> 
> This poll runs until October 8, 2024.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

-- 
Loa Andersson
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting
[e-mail]
[e-mail]