[mpls] Re: 答复: Working Group Adoption Poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I am not following your reasoning.  Your email said "we do not have a 
case for MNA".  The use case draft makes that case.  If it makes that 
case insufficiently, that would have been a problem with that ddraft.

However, the use case draft did not claim to be the only use cases, nor 
did it claim that the use cases needed to be addressed in any particular 
order.  This draft should be evaluated on the basis of its own utility, 
not on the basis of whether it is a good justification for MNA.

Yours,

Joel

On 10/11/2024 10:06 AM, Aijun Wang wrote:
> Hi, Joel:
>
> What’s my main concern is that the entropy function is not the key use 
> case for the MNA based solution, there is also no any mention of such 
> use case in 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-15.
>
> What’s the reason to adopt such MNA -based solution for one non-killer 
> application(also not indispensable) to encourage the industry to 
> implement, deployment of the new MNA based forward plane?
>
>
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
>
>> On Oct 11, 2024, at 21:38, Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> It sounds like you consider that the use cases draft, which the 
>> working group approved for publication, is insufficient.  If so, it 
>> would have seemed appropriate for you to raise the objection in the 
>> WG to that draft.  I don't recall you doing so.  Did I miss it?
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Joel
>>
>> On 10/11/2024 4:34 AM, Aijun Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Nic and WG:
>>>
>>> Although this draft provide one solution to implement the entropy 
>>> function, it is not the necessary and killer application for the MNA 
>>> based solution.
>>>
>>> If there is no other prominent function for MNA based architecture, 
>>> what’s the reason to design the new architecture?
>>>
>>> I would like the WG to focus firstly other prominent(if exists) 
>>> functions that can utilize/exploit the flexibility of MNA based 
>>> architecture.
>>>
>>> From the POV of the operator, there is no impetus to put forward 
>>> such new knob for the existing function(also considering the 
>>> existing MPLS entropy label can fulfill its task perfectly)
>>>
>>> I suggest the WG to stop adopt it as the WG document, and devote 
>>> more energies to others fascinate proposals.
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>> Aijun Wang
>>>
>>> China Telecom
>>>
>>> *发件人:*[e-mail] 
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] *代表 *[e-mail]
>>> *发送时间:*2024年10月1日22:04
>>> *收件人:*[e-mail]
>>> *抄送:*[e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> *主题:*[mpls] Working Group Adoption Poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy
>>>
>>> Dear WG,
>>>
>>> This email starts a two-week poll on adopting 
>>> draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy as a MPLS working group document.
>>>
>>> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the MPLS working 
>>> group mailing list ([e-mail])
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Currently, there are no IPR disclosure against this document. All 
>>> the authors/contributors have stated on
>>>
>>> the MPLS WG mailing list that they are unaware of any undisclosed 
>>> IPRs that relates to this document.
>>>
>>> This working group adoption poll ends October 16, 2024.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Nic (as MPLS WG co-chair)
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list [e-mail]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]