Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators Fri, 06 August 2021 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6563A2BCD; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NSCYtywZTRgW; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A79C93A2BCA; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) (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 (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4Gh4zl0xNnz5vq9; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 14:49:07 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1628254147; bh=fM6uumrZSGVohgzUPz+Ig4WtW3XNySEdVXhFntXwuFY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=fDzX9v9LWaMTgD7+135Z9caqrPeCJEKmggr/z7WxaSWkfiEz0IXnrlebE1foNZiwT BMhe8hUwH7dGcRojsSKJNjH2AnVKojB57+B2goRPr5VbpaOgKHgDljrSvv1EI5g8tc xw+NqvognoTQ6z7roOhJzsyH3xCKi4ye+EXBINZaRXEdNb7BkaysJtIfHD0amN+QbA Mk2iBFVkqFApHI6eFV7IV9b2Mc5KMTPPQ0/Vaxn0hQWSQktJ/lckVxyyQSyL7/mm+V FkxIY9WSk2i2qQ/3Tj9u0wLkPBijPD4bDEoYdxHUX+k/Im9D6m29iK9qL9elQABC9n 8ediKR+hCqF9w==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4Gh4zk6hgXz1xqc; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 14:49:06 +0200 (CEST)
To: Loa Andersson <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, DetNet Chairs <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators
Thread-Index: AQHXigl1KauuRGSBoUiwpvVCwbsBb6tmbPZA
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 12:49:05 +0000
Message-ID: <21446_1628254146_610D2FC2_21446_330_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4CE60BB5@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 12:49:15 -0000

Thanks for the work on the proposed summary.

Looks good to me. 

1 comment

>    One proposal is to "re-purpose" an existing bSPL to serve this purpose. However, in order to do this it must be shown that there is no potential interference with the current role of the bSPL. 

>   If we can't demonstrate the non-interference then we should assign specific forwarding action indicator base special purpose label.

I think it would be easier to demonstrate the interference with a single example, rather than requiring a formal demonstration that their can't be interference.

IOW, if one believes that there is interference, please explicit the case.

Could this be rephrased along this line?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 4:51 PM
> To:
> Cc:;; DetNet Chairs <detnet-
> Subject: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-
> stack indicators
> Working Group, MPLS Open DT,
> The week before IETF 111 the Open DT met and agreed upon a text on
> "indicators". The terminology we use is that somewhere in the label
> stack there is an indicator tell the processing node that a specific
> packet needs a certain set of Forwarding Actions, for example some iOAM
> action might be required. To support the forwarding action there is
> often ancillary data with the packet.
> The text the DT produced is about the indicators, a companion text on
> ancillary data will follow.
> The text was discussed in the Joint meeting and reported to the MPLS
> working group at IETF 111. The Open DT itself can only propose, the text
> is therefore now sent out to the working group for review and consensus
> call.
> The proposed text is found at:
> Please review the proposed text and comment on the MPLS wg mailing list
> (
> We plan to keep the consensus call open until 2021-08-20.
> /Loa
> Open DT Co-ordinator / MPLS wg co-chair
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email:
> Senior MPLS Expert                
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.