Re: [mpls] Today's MPLS Open DT meeting cancelled

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Kireeti,

Sorry for late response.

One reason why we setup the agenda as we did for last week (1) 
requrements and (2 )PSD Directive (if time allows), was that we wanted 
to the requirements first. Then the discussion on the requirements 
disappeared it was natural to cancel the meeting.

There are also a few question that I wanted to think about before going 
ahead with the PSD directive.

First, the design directive should be a guideline the keeps solutions 
within a sound architectural boundary. Your text seem to be describing 
one particulate solution.

We  should not confuse a design directive with the specification. For 
the design directive is enough if we say "you can't place PSD that 
belongs to more than one FA/NF afteer the label with the BoS bit set".

The rest is specification and should go into ID/RFC.

Second, we should not anticipate wg consensus or actually 
specifications. There are currently more than one proposal, on for 
example how the indicators should work.

For example the FAI proposal works with one flag field, and let the 
implementation figure out what is in the PSD. The NFI proposal is 
different, and I not entirely clear how it works. I think it is one flag 
field for actions/function that generate ISD and NoD, and two flag 
fields (end-to-end and hop-by-hop) for actions/functions that generate PSD.

Your design directive seems to anticipate that we will go with the FAI 
proposal, but we need to wait to take that decision.

The design directive don't need that decision "don't place more than one 
set of PSD after the BoS" is independent of how the PSD is generated.

/Loa


On 21/10/2021 16:23, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> Agree we should wait for Matthew on the requirements discussion, but we can still have the meeting today and talk about the PSD Directive.  I’m ready.
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2021, at 06:52, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> We have just learned that Matthew can't make today's meeting. In a short consultation with the other chairs we agree that we don't want to take the requirement discussion without Matthew. We therefore decided to postpone the meeting one week.
>>
>> /Loa
>> -- 
>>
>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 

-- 

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