Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution

[Jaganbabu Rajamanickam <[e-mail]>]

Hello Greg,
   As we told you before, we want to have one solution from the available
solutions today. We don't want to standardize multiple solutions. We choose
the option "B" because of the following statement which was mentioned in
the poll, which we don't wanted to go with

"We expect any unified solution to document the pieces from the presented
solutions that are discussed and agreed upon in the weekly MPLS Open DT
meeting."

Thanx,
Jags


On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 8:23 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jag,
> thank you for your response, though that is not what I was expecting. As I
> understand, there are two options in the question asked by the WG Chair. In
> your response, you've indicated your support of Option B . That, in
> my opinion, contradicts the "support a single solution" position, as the
> Option B, in my understanding, is to standardize one or more solutions. Is
> that your intention? Further, I cannot understand "We do not support the DT
> team bringing forward another solution from the piece of work which has
> been already done". Is that you command the Open DT to cease and desist any
> work on a solution other than yours?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 2:16 PM Jaganbabu Rajamanickam <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hello Greg,
>>    I agree with Rakesh and Xiao Min.
>>     We support progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr as a single
>> solution.
>>     We do not support the DT team bringing forward another solution from
>> the piece of work which has been already done.
>> Thanx,
>> Jags
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi=
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>> We support one solution for MNA.
>>>
>>> And we support progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr as that solution.
>>>
>>> And we do not support DT team bringing forward another solution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Rakesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>> *Date: *Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 1:57 AM
>>> *To: *Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>
>>> *Cc: *Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>, Tarek Saad <
>>> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution
>>>
>>> Dear Jag, Rakesh, and Xiao Min,
>>>
>>> I feel confused. The way I understood the pool's question is whether the
>>> group supports standardizing a single solution document or whether each of
>>> proposed solutions can be standardized (WG Chairs, please correct me if I
>>> misunderstood your question). From your previous emails, it appears that
>>> you support the latter - possibly standardizing multiple data plane
>>> solutions. Could you please clarify. Also, I don't find in the poll
>>> question about which of the solutions, already proposed or to be proposed
>>> soon, to be standardized. It seems like being disciplined and following the
>>> scope of the questions will help us progress this work faster.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 12:34 AM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi=
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Joel,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, one solution. And we support progressing the
>>> draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr as that solution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Rakesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
>>> *Date: *Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:53 PM
>>> *To: *Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>, Tarek Saad <
>>> [e-mail]>
>>> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution
>>>
>>> Then we agree that we want only one solution.
>>>
>>> I read the poll as being agnostic on the question of what the one
>>> solution would look like.  Given that there are at least two solutions that
>>> seem to work (and are now quite similar) on the table, I would expect a
>>> fairly typical process for getting to one good solution.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> On 9/12/2022 5:50 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Joel,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please see inline with <RG>..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>> *Date: *Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:41 PM
>>> *To: *Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,
>>> Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution
>>>
>>> The phrasing in this sub-thread of messages seems a bit odd to me.
>>>
>>> Are you folks really saying you want to see two (or more) different
>>> solutions for MNA?  That seems highly undesirable.
>>>
>>> <RG> We are saying - progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr as a
>>> “single” MNA solution.
>>>
>>> <RG> Definitely *not* two or more different solutions for MNA.
>>>
>>> I read the poll as choosing between one solution and many solutions.
>>> You seem to be saying you read the poll as being between crafting something
>>> new and having multiple solutions??
>>>
>>> <RG> We are saying - progressing one solution only, which is defined in
>>> draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Rakesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> On 9/12/2022 3:50 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi WG Chairs,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I support option (B) as progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr (that is
>>> well-thought of by the co-authors) as a single solution for MNA.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not support option (A) as new authors from the open DT team to take
>>> pieces from the draft and submit a new document.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Rakesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of Tarek Saad <
>>> [e-mail]>
>>> *Date: *Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 19:50
>>> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> <[e-mail]>, DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject: *[mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution
>>>
>>> Dear MPLS WG and MPLS Open DT,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Over the past months, the MPLS Open DT has reviewed several proposals
>>> for the packet encodings for the MNA solution.
>>>
>>> A compilation of the multiple solutions brought forward is present at
>>> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/mpls/wiki/MNADocumnets.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We believe that currently there are two alternative ways to progress the
>>> MNA solution.
>>>
>>> One of them requires a single unified solution, and the other allows for
>>> individual solutions to progress independently.
>>>
>>> We expect any unified solution to document the pieces from the presented
>>> solutions that are discussed and agreed upon in the weekly MPLS Open DT
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>> The co-chairs for the working groups hosting the Open MPLS DT are
>>> polling the WG on their preference to move forward.
>>>
>>> Please respond with either:
>>>
>>>
>>>     A) “I support the MPLS Open DT bringing forward a single unified
>>> solution"
>>>
>>>     OR
>>>     B) “I support progressing the individual solution(s) independently"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We will allow this poll to run for two weeks (ending on Sept 19th).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tarek (for the MPLS Open DT co-chairs)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> mpls mailing list
>>>
>>> [e-mail]
>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>