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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

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]>
> *Date: *Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:41 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
>
> 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
>         19^th ).
>
>         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
>