IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 31 May 2022 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58B8C15C017 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.982
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.982 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bbUlLwegILeY for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E77C8C15C013 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4LCF1J5X88z6G9tQ for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1654007124; bh=M8zlf7Fj+b2ODSTevfeeU3DHGy0VD0L3cnSMgCB5M0o=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=o998+wKhzToAeS6BqGcwoCLIk+LkDj6wHxhoTSBVgV1gMRETl3h33Cnj8hhYOuAtz hfWhLtqQFpNExlJCuq9me170ZNDbvZrDLiDviOqa83fqr6jtk4cEv5MZ8qzdsv7a0J ChBaY9I+OC3f4qU6YCdfDg/WwJEsprR+sPb7ORHY=
X-Quarantine-ID: <CMFd7GtSRKzO>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.23.181] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4LCF1J2gSdz6G9KG for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <405b3350-7389-30f3-143f-3987faf07a46@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 10:25:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <6e5c6fa9-539f-80c3-7c92-5b97ad67560c@pi.nu>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <6e5c6fa9-539f-80c3-7c92-5b97ad67560c@pi.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Xt24b_-Rrzim6JtGHuitsIw9PII>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 14:25:28 -0000

For purposes of the framework draft, I think the relevant statement is 
that repurposing the ELI is not a good idea.  Stating how we do 
indicating information seems to belong in solution drafts.

Yours,

Joel

On 5/30/2022 5:21 PM, Loa Andersson 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email