Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt

[Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

I just pointed out they are not the same thing. They need to be named differently to avoid confusing people.

Best,
Haoyu
From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 4:35 AM
To: Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>
Cc: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>; Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt

Hi Haoyu,
can you point out which function of IOAM-DEX the IOAM-DEX-MNA cannot support? And I will encourage use of the full name for the proposed solution - IOAM-DEX-MNA, not IOAM-DEX.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 17:13 Haoyu Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Greg,

Anything that changes the format specified in RFC9326 can’t be called IOAM DEX. So please change the name to avoid confusion. I’m not against ISD OAM solutions, but we need be careful on the terms to be used.

For the postcard mode and passport mode, we already know the advantages and drawbacks of each. Based on this, it’s a hard call to simply disable one and only support the other. We should keep the option open to users, or at least, we should get the feedbacks from the operators first.

Best regards,
Haoyu

From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 3:41 PM
To: Haoyu Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt

Hi Haoyu,
I believe that the value of IOAM, as an example of on-path OAM, has been recognized and well acknowledged. But it is important to separate the benefits of IOAM to produce operational state and telemetry information from how that information may be transported for the processing. As Rakesh has pointed out during the joint meeting, Incremental Trace Option is outside the scope already. To me, that is the demonstration of a pragmatic approach to applying IOAM in an MPLS network. Next, if we compare Pre-allocated and Edge-to-Edge with the Direct Export, I don't see any gap in the ability to collect operational state and telemetry information. Hence, I conclude that functionally IOAM-DEX is on par with Pre-allocated and E2E trace options. Also, as I've noted in the presentation, IOAM-DEX allows for more accurate measurement of transit delay (residence time). Hence, it seems only practical supporting only IOAM-DEX in an MPLS network to use as an on-path OAM tool (of course, the Alternate Marking method is an interesting and useful mechanism that should be discussed). And IOAM-DEX can adequately supported based on the WG-adopted draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr. Hence, I cannot find anything supporting the need for PSD in MNA as far as IOAM in MPLS is concerned.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 12:06 PM Haoyu Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I think we should keep PSD. There are already use cases for PSD documented. IOAM Trace has its own merits even though alternatives exist (otherwise we shouldn’t have it standardized at the first place).
Also, I believe MNA should be flexible and forwarding looking. MNA is a big change to MPLS so it’s critical to make it right. If we leave it now it would be costly to add it in the future. If we have the mechanism supported now, whether use it or not will become a business choice.

Best regards,
Haoyu

From: mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 8:55 PM
To: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt


I don't want to hold up the requirements document.  But....

The document does not currently justify the requirement for post-stack data, in terms of the inherent tradeoff between value and complexity.  I wonder if the discussion of PSD should be removed from the document entirely, leaving it for further WG discussion.

Yours,

Joel
On 3/27/2023 6:25 AM, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) wrote:
WG,

I have just posted an updated version of the MNA requirements draft. There are very few changes in this draft.

  1.  Clearly identified the editor, per the request from the MPLS WG chairs.
  2.  Cleaned up a few editor’s notes.
  3.  Added a minor clarification to the wording of Section 3.4 Paragraph 8: location of post stack ancillary data->location of any post stack ancillary data).

The authors reviewed the text and did not find any other significant issues that might not be in line with the outcome of recent WG adoption polls, but please let us know if you see anything of concern.

Best regards,

Matthew



From: mpls <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 27 March 2023 at 11:14
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See http://nok.it/ext<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnok.it%2Fext&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7Cb231daca33a04eb4539b08db2f67610b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155893300854482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QLs1wUelzp0jfEeajjTzI4YZv17bHPXDKuWoYeoBftg%3D&reserved=0> for additional information.



A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) WG of the IETF.

   Title           : Requirements for MPLS Network Actions
   Authors         : Matthew Bocci
                     Stewart Bryant
                     John Drake
   Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt
   Pages           : 12
   Date            : 2023-03-27

Abstract:
   This document specifies requirements for MPLS network actions which
   affect the forwarding or other processing of MPLS packets.  These
   requirements are derived from a number of proposals for additions to
   the MPLS label stack to allow forwarding or other processing
   decisions to be made, either by a transit or terminating LSR (i.e.
   the LER).

The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements%2F&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7Cb231daca33a04eb4539b08db2f67610b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155893300854482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o%2FOlSPva2C0Ozphz1BvC0%2F27jGiDnHQxhIB2NvnoeDA%3D&reserved=0>

There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7Cb231daca33a04eb4539b08db2f67610b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155893300854482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iHRdErZ%2FwK83K87aSFgy0N2bDrc1Onz%2BYsS5qeUFWTU%3D&reserved=0>

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fiddiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7Cb231daca33a04eb4539b08db2f67610b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155893300854482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wekbeYXi%2F3BZJn6hWvP4dar1lJkgHtLNZJuhkbW8osQ%3D&reserved=0>

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmpls&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7Cb231daca33a04eb4539b08db2f67610b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155893300854482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8CruJ4%2BHwV4qywyfscZcbZBR%2BPUHRuvAvte6sLOinA0%3D&reserved=0>


_______________________________________________

mpls mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmpls&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7Cb231daca33a04eb4539b08db2f67610b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155893300854482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8CruJ4%2BHwV4qywyfscZcbZBR%2BPUHRuvAvte6sLOinA0%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmpls&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7Cb231daca33a04eb4539b08db2f67610b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155893300854482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8CruJ4%2BHwV4qywyfscZcbZBR%2BPUHRuvAvte6sLOinA0%3D&reserved=0>