Re: [mpls] Poll 1: ISD and PSD in the MNA Framework

["Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with the outline Loa, although I would like to try to minimize the use of ISD if possible and we should use the use cases for this.

From: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 30 May 2022 at 23:20
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [mpls] Poll 1: ISD and PSD in the MNA Framework
MPLS working group and and the Open MPLS DT,

The working group chairs believe the current situation is:

The Framework document must be solution independent and say:

a packet may carry Ancillary Data using one or both of the following
methods:

    (1) in-stack, and

    (2) post-stack.

It is up to the document specifying the Network Action to specify which
method is to be used for which Ancillary Data.

Note, a Network Action may not require inclusion of Ancillary Data.

Is this the consensus of the working group? Please respond to the MPLS
WG mail list.


Loa Andersson
for the Open DT wg chairs

--
Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls