IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Working Group Adoption Poll for draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Mon, 11 July 2022 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.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 EF2A9C15791D; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 05:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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
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 RCEeq9TpMi9x; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 05:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F4BCC157B40; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 05:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LhMyS0cvJz6HJTh; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 20:05:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm100008.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.125) by fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:06:23 +0200
Received: from dggpemm500008.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.136) by dggpemm100008.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.125) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 20:06:21 +0800
Received: from dggpemm500008.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.136]) by dggpemm500008.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.136]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 20:06:21 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: "n.leymann@telekom.de" <n.leymann@telekom.de>
CC: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk@ietf.org" <draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Working Group Adoption Poll for draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk
Thread-Index: AdiK4W6j70DR8hp3TGqUq5XpTdvLIwG4SVYAANaXp4A=
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:21 +0000
Message-ID: <ca851d220d834556b715117627d2b74a@huawei.com>
References: <BEZP281MB200828F8E7AEF2D2EFBC8A9498B89@BEZP281MB2008.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <FAA3BFEA-180B-4456-85C0-8AA129B02447@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <FAA3BFEA-180B-4456-85C0-8AA129B02447@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.153.178.110]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ca851d220d834556b715117627d2b74ahuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/c1rBfpsuQO3VbPFBe53xjA2Qjqw>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Group Adoption Poll for draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:07:15 -0000

Hi All,
Personally speaking I do not think the ISD (In Stack Data) is a reasonable design for MPLS and should not be incorporated the draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk.
MPLS label stack design is aligned with the era that the hardware capability is limited and provide a simple and clear method to cope with such issue and
extended the network functions well.  Now as the services are emerging and require metadata-based extension, the reasonable way is to introduce the
new design instead of disrupting the existing one.


Best Regards,
Robin




On 2022 -Jun-28, at 15:54, n.leymann@telekom.de<mailto:n.leymann@telekom.de> wrote:

Working Group,

This is to start a two week poll on adopting  draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk as a MPLS working group
document.

Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working group mailing list (mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>).
Please give a technical motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that
the document should not be adopted as a working group document.

There are two IPRs disclosure against this document. Details can be found here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5703/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5659/


An IPR poll was done, and all the authors and contributors have stated on the MPLS WG mailing list that
they are unaware of any other IPR that relates to this document

The working group adoption poll ends July 12th , 2022.

Nic
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email