Re: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Wed, 08 June 2022 10:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7639C15D86C; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B-Y_v_Hbie80; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 03:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E32D3C15D871; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 03:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LJ3hS2M98z6H7KW; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 18:42:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemi500016.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.220) by fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 12:43:46 +0200
Received: from kwepemi500017.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.110) by kwepemi500016.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 18:43:44 +0800
Received: from kwepemi500017.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.110]) by kwepemi500017.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.110]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 18:43:44 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
CC: "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "pals-chairs@ietf.org" <pals-chairs@ietf.org>, DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators
Thread-Index: AQHYdGt2O91/n3NsqE6NC+cAT/zR2a1FUJBA
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 10:43:44 +0000
Message-ID: <5e9a14cab26b4c388edfa96b6a14a327@huawei.com>
References: <6e5c6fa9-539f-80c3-7c92-5b97ad67560c@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <6e5c6fa9-539f-80c3-7c92-5b97ad67560c@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.40.66]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/kNDEhNf5j6pv2Cp74jqBGfwfgFk>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 10:43:54 -0000

Hi Chairs, 

I have one clarification comment about the statement below:

It is not clear whether you were referring to the indicator of the existence of any network action (and the optional associated data), or the indicator of a specific network action. My guess is you were talking about the former. 

The term for the former was Ancillary Data Indicator (ADI), in current mna framework draft it is called Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator (NSI), while my previous comment was that they are not equivalent.

The term for the latter is Network Action Indicator (NAI). 

Thus to avoid possible confusion with this poll, I'd suggest to avoid mentioning "network action indicator" in this question. In the mean time, the WG may also discuss how to pick a suitable term for it. 

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 5:22 AM
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org; pals-chairs@ietf.org; DetNet Chairs
> <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network
> Action Indicators
> 
> MPLS Working Group, MPLS Open DT,
> 
> The MPLS Network Actions (MNA) framework requires a method of
> indicating the presence of a Network Action and any Ancillary Data.



> Is the consensus of the working group that we do this by:
> 
>    (1) allocating a new SPL for Network Action Indicators?
> 
>    (2) re-purposing the ELI SPL?
> 
>    (3) using some other method of indicating this such as making it an
>        additional property of an ordinary label?
> 
> Please respond to the MPLS WG mail list.
> 
> Loa Andersson
> for the Open DT wg chairs
> 
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls