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

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

So the next step for the WG is to work out the PSD and see how ISD and PSD can complement and be compatible.
It’s not the time to finalize draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr in hurry.
Especially when there is no hands on implementation.

Tianran

From: Joel Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 9:06 AM
To: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
Cc: mpls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)


If someone wants to put a proposal on the table for PSD that does not require ISD, they can do so.  And the WG can, if the process moves that far, consider that solution.  But, by definition, if the solution does not use ISD then it has no impact on advancing the mna-hdr draft solution for those cases which use ISD.  I still do not see the coupling you are asserting.

In particular, while the requirements permit such a solution, they do not mandate it.  Since we do not even have a proposal for how to do PSD without ISD, it seems really confusing to be objecting to advancing the mna-hdr draft on such a basis.

Yours,

Joel
On 9/29/2024 8:43 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
Hi Greg,

Please see below:

   5.   Subject to the constraints in these requirements, a Network
        Action solution MAY carry MNA information in-stack, post-stack,
        or both in-stack and post-stack.

   6.   Solution specifications MUST NOT require an implementation to
        support in-stack ancillary data, unless the implementation
        chooses to support an NA that uses in-stack ancillary data.

Tianran
From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 8:24 AM
To: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Tony Li <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>; Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>; mpls-chairs <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)

Hi Tianran,
Please point me to the part of RFC 9613<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9613/> that supports your request.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 4:44 PM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
The IPR poll for the two document did not hit the point.
The point is how can the MNA mechanism disable the ISD and use PSD only.
The draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr need to resolve this.

Tianran

From: Tony Li [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 12:13 AM
To: Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; mpls-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)


Hi Zafar,

I am aware of the thread but all we hear is that chairs are discussing the responses and will share further update, “interest” vs. “consensus” debate, the chairs are discussing how to initiate the PSD debate, etc. There were 65 emails on the original PSD poll. I am not sure why we need another round of debate and what will be the nature of that debate. Why not just start WG adoption call and gauge the WG “consensus”.


That’s exactly what we’re doing. The process for doing this begins with an IPR poll.

Nic started the IPR poll on draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex and draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-dex on Sept 3.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/XU3Ycij6Oq2kGWi14k3eXmpdQvM/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/7NmJqyMHDairPxEn7PGxz99KNiI/

Tony


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>


_______________________________________________

mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>