[mpls] Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-14: (with DISCUSS)

["Matthew Bocci (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul

I concur that the term NAI in the context of MPLS is very unlikely to be confused with NAI in the context of user identification.

There are many cases of overloaded TLAs, even in the RFC editor’s well known abbreviations list, that are much closer in domain than this one.

Regards

Matthew

From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 28 May 2024 at 00:56
To: Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-14: (with DISCUSS)

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.



While I am not one of the authors, I looked at RFC 4282 (and 7542 which
obsoletes 4282).  Given taht TLAs are inherently overloaded, and that
the context for 8542 has nothing to do with MPLS, I don't see why we
should worry about this particular collision.  I am sure if I searched I
could find more collisions (probably outside networking) with the TLA NAI.

Yours,

Joel

On 5/27/2024 7:48 PM, Paul Wouters via Datatracker wrote:
> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-14: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks to Dan Harkins for the security review:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-13-secdir-early-harkins-2024-05-02/
>
> Specifically, he points out that:
>
> but the the actions to be performed are indicated by
> "Network Action Indicators (NAIs)". These NAIs are to be encoded
> according to RFC 3031, which is the MPLS Architecture document.
> RFC 3031 does not specify an encoding of a thing called an NAI.
> Unfortunately, RFC 4282 does. It defines a "Network Access
> Identifier" which is technically different than a "Network Action
> Indicator" but I think the naming in this draft unfortunately needs
> to be changed
>
> Is there a reason the authors and WG think having to different but similar
> things called NAI is not a problem here? Or is this an oversight that should
> be corrected to avoid confusion?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]