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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Aijun,
could you please clarify which criteria you consider when determining
whether a particular case is "the key use case for the MNA based solution"?
In the course of the WG discussion of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases/>, as I
understand it, it was agreed to progress the draft with current content
while new cases that use MNA would elaborate on how use of MNA enables more
efficient realization compared to other methods. In my opinion, this draft
is useful for cases that also use MNA solution, e.g., Network Resource
Partition Selector (which is listed in draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases/>).

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 7:07 AM Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
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]
> <[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 to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>