Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 21 April 2022 21:21 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 C540F3A0CF4; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LtWovolRxMCO; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 453803A0CEF; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id w5so7289124lji.4; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q1fpHYPbD7ho6oUVMhv7WUJ20ETaotp+2F5+p3VZl3c=; b=bv9FfDSirKNbzJvEOeB7TAi0Ye9LllmOmweNdyOGgbz67vT5+V9Z9wwZXM2EZL+6NW 7zncFAEIn0m+lw8FdI0Tb8p4mi4LoTJPY8Raz1XXlpkmr8eqTh7gh06n9MLA4jT4e2n7 hHzfbKz2QIkiXjXBm43/OAqpbIJGo7IgonK/t14A00vExD40oS+Onx4WvfD+RqGm8Zx2 CTUUYArZlCLn1f3t4vjJwvkuWffZANmix8xRD4lWVwLXWdkReMtifqEo2YmlrebNbHW/ 6r59Ss/dr/deNgD/AAwafiDYaJFEwjFvns1uZ7cztAtrrIGGTMXGpiLqyvKI57jj4tSo JDbQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q1fpHYPbD7ho6oUVMhv7WUJ20ETaotp+2F5+p3VZl3c=; b=Vnnhf1XRJpbD+3XVwfwz7eeT8ypyowb26MW6HYFX8UpU7IQtdK1Gf85LaIDyiTTvcT rjl0z7m2SW2WeYvL+KDXN1Gu+2v53CCwyYEI0TPyAb7SuAkBKV4zC79Rq97e7uiavUci 27DnCd4Jc8BNzc0wVUfFwQjfiCqOKF3dEV9tQhhyV2wZevECuMkNVrL1pwdfpbm6svHn lWLlK1H0GndvnE6P7e8Qgp3XqzozTbKyL9HqQyzXC0f/LgRi9WHYPUiU7U5SiRrUBcx0 +dCv3d6FcT/iaqNHyoUTxRa8jrV4tmLXwXKdw2ZgZs7bHqPDJUApfev9hOMtjFWy5DQH Zidw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335kxZuXr1qdLAgo/ZlgGhjs5eSmH5YqSrQhaXYMp2QU478r20B l3ReITwOknF9kAjbBEJ5JnJgx4IrevLgm7+KwjOvd4fb
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyKbRv9ivJCxgLQzVZYdCVn9suR53UWXq3TMeZ8+6E6xrjldGRlmAadgH2M4Kuem9rnAeF97rdWEXhOxUJb7U=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:1f11:0:b0:24b:6b35:42e3 with SMTP id f17-20020a2e1f11000000b0024b6b3542e3mr863892ljf.195.1650576064907; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <PH0PR13MB4795A48DCF7487377267DFC99AF59@PH0PR13MB4795.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <D52250EF-213C-49FE-BAF3-705FC13C25A1@juniper.net> <PH0PR13MB479563003FAE757FC5D160159AF59@PH0PR13MB4795.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BY3PR05MB80817245EE010D88BC782160C7F59@BY3PR05MB8081.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BY3PR13MB47877C58D51CE4A012B736889AF49@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BY3PR05MB80818C87E2FDB30F48BA39ECC7F49@BY3PR05MB8081.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmVq7x+Zn8z3MvV7Su-zXqNYL=rVuZrJhVq-oKO9RBridw@mail.gmail.com> <BY3PR13MB47879CAC7DBC68C39056A6389AF49@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY3PR13MB47879CAC7DBC68C39056A6389AF49@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:20:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXF_LYsHzDcTbpgPv3xJ+iGx2+wOQLj4BGuYmAaWMCDSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
Cc: John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "pals-chairs@ietf.org" <pals-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements@ietf.org" <draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements@ietf.org>, DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000060bde05dd30b024"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/km18kzGF4DLo6Bw7j80ERKyNDYw>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:21:13 -0000
Hi Haoyu, I may not see a case for an intermediate node re-writing the existing NAI. I think that the node should impose a new NAS. I see the case for an intermediate node writing into PSD (e.g., HbH IOAM though I think that is too expensive and the IOAM Direct Export or Hybrid Two-Step are a better choice). To summarize, I don't see the need for an intermediate node to write into ISD and am open to discussing the node writing into PSD. WDYT? Regards, Greg On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 2:12 PM Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > I’m not familiar with NFFRR. All my questions in the other email is based > on the following abstraction: > > > > It’s an packet-by-packet data-plane action > > It’s an action that can be updated on a path (i.e., its data is writable > enroute) > > > > These are sufficient to help us to think about the operational > implications, if use cases bearing such characteristics would be allowed. > Thanks! > > > > Best regards, > > Haoyu > > *From:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2022 1:46 PM > *To:* John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Cc:* Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>; mpls@ietf.org; > mpls-chairs@ietf.org; pals-chairs@ietf.org; > draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements@ietf.org; DetNet Chairs < > detnet-chairs@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on > draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements > > > > Hi John and Haoyu, > > I have several questions about the NFRR use case. As I understand it, a > point of local repair (PLR) imposes NAS with the NFRR indicator so that it > becomes ToS at the merge node (MN). If that is correct, then the MN will > remove the NAS with the NFRR indicator as the packet is returned on the > "normal" path. Hence, I don't see why an intermediate node would need to > write into an existing in the label stack NAS in support of NFRR. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:53 PM John E Drake <jdrake= > 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Comments inline below. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2022 12:37 PM > *To:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> > *Cc:* Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; > mpls@ietf.org; pals-chairs@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; > draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements@ietf.org; DetNet Chairs < > detnet-chairs@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] working group adoption poll on > draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > Hi John, > > > > You have described quite a bit of the behavior of NAS. It’s useful for > future discussions. Thanks. > > > > *[JD] You are most welcome, and I would like to apologize for the abrupt > tone of my last several emails to you. I just wasn’t thinking. * > > > > According to the DT discussion today, more are understood. So I have some > further questions. > > NAS is something within the label stack but writable by intermediate > nodes. Is this the stack operation? > > > > *[JD] I think that this will be defined in the RFC which specifies a > given network action. As we discussed today, that is probably the case for > NFFRR. * > > > > Besides, if NAS emerges at ToS, you said it’ll be popped and discarded. > What if the NAS also needs to be applied to the labels below it? Whatever > measures you will take here, are those the stack operations? > > > > *[JD] What we have said is that the node which removes the forwarding > label which would cause an NAS to rise to the top of stack must remove the > NAS. Per RFC 8662, there would be multiple copies of an NAS within the > label stack so that subsequent nodes will operate on the next copy, until > that copy would rise to the top of stack, at which point that copy is > removed, and so on. In today’s meeting, Tarek indicated that* > > *for certain use cases we might have different NASes at different > positions within a label stack.* > > > > *Also, as we have noted, the NAS does not require the use of in-stack > ancillary data. If we were to decide that all network action were to be > done with post-stack ancillary data, we would still use the NAS to > indicate the presence of post-stack ancillary data * > > > > > > Best regards, > > Haoyu > > > > *From:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:54 PM > *To:* Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > *Cc:* Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; > mpls@ietf.org; pals-chairs@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; > draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements@ietf.org; DetNet Chairs < > detnet-chairs@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] working group adoption poll on > draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements > > > > Hi, > > > > Comments inline below. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2022 2:18 PM > *To:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> > *Cc:* Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; > mpls@ietf.org; pals-chairs@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; > draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements@ietf.org; DetNet Chairs < > detnet-chairs@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] working group adoption poll on > draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > John, > > > > Can you name “a single entity” as “sub-stack” which implies more than one > entities? > > > > *[JD] A label is either an instruction or parameters associated with an > instruction – think ELI/EL. A NAS is simply a set of instructions and > their associated parameters * > > > > In essence, the NAS is a new header which is inserted into MPLS label > stack under the constraints of the MPLS label format. It has nothing to do > with a label (so “sub” to what?). > > > > *[JD] I don’t think you have been paying attention. All NAS is doing is > following the paradigm described above, but compressing the instructions > and their parameters in order to conserve label stack space. This is not > rocket science* > > > > And the operation on it is certainly not a “stack operation” as well. It’s > embedded in the label stack. You scan the label stack to reach it, parse > it, and process it. When it emerge on the ToS, we still don’t know the > behavior for handling it yet. Reinsert it to somewhere in the label stack? > Whatever it is, this is not “stack operation”. > > > > *[JD] This is nonsense. The NAS exactly follows the MPLS label stack > paradigm. It will rise to the top of the stack and then be popped. It is > not re-inserted into the label stack. It exactly follows the model of RFC > 8662 * > > > > Best regards, > > Haoyu > > > > *From:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2022 10:04 AM > *To:* Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > *Cc:* Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; > mpls@ietf.org; pals-chairs@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; > draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements@ietf.org; DetNet Chairs < > detnet-chairs@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on > draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements > > > > Haoyu, > > > > If you consider the NAS as a single entity it is completely consistent > with the definition of a stack. I think this remark is spurious and > non-productive. > > > > John > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Apr 20, 2022, at 12:58 PM, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> wrote: > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > > > I propose Network Action Sub-stack Indcator (NSI) for this purpose. > Proposed definition: > > > > An LSE used to indicate the presence of a > Network Action Sub-stack. > > > > We should also revise the definition of NAS to use this. > > > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > Stack means “first in last out”. It is used for MPLS label stack to > describe the label processing procedure. > > The encoded ISD is neither labels any more nor a stack in any sense, so > both “sub” and “stack” are improper terms in my opinion. Thanks. > > > > Best regards, > > Haoyu > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WjmuV7E8Mw6rIaDBNoBzdrOb19V5QnD5ieOAlSqsS7ep5ruJ951hAkyCvczVMYI$ > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fnam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fmpls__*3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WjmuV7E8Mw6rIaDBNoBzdrOb19V5QnD5ieOAlSqsS7ep5ruJ951hAkyCvczVMYI*24%26data%3D05*7C01*7Chaoyu.song*40futurewei.com*7C187c0f73b908456a2fb208da23077580*7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc*7C1*7C0*7C637860812193372183*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C%26sdata%3D*2FpaWE*2B0JpHUtCDirsbXMwvuDbdkuCIRD8Wfo1tfsyew*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XPzXhO-cZxJqPSoPXdg6bHYTnKWeJBfjd_JoAz5kPjMZ5DMQZpxcHv5RjfhJx1o%24&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C7f1d75d4771642c67f1108da23d7fbf2%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637861707803494069%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dhKRZALzsWh%2Bx69Owa7sLwWM2KwcObfei9CVXMjq6vQ%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmpls&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C7f1d75d4771642c67f1108da23d7fbf2%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637861707803494069%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QPgGaUF8GVu8IjbnFN2bFck2NKQBRtfSgs7E3XZ22u8%3D&reserved=0> > >
- [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-bocci… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Tony Li
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… xiao.min2
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Tony Li
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Tony Li
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Tony Li
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Tony Li
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Tony Li
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Tony Li
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Luay Jalil
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-b… John E Drake
- [mpls] Closed, : working group adoption poll on d… Loa Andersson