[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

Since you agree that PSD can't be done in isolation, but will depend on 
ISD (or at least the MPLS label stack), I guess that you also agree that 
we should wait with progress the ISD draft.

/Loa

Den 02/10/2024 kl. 14:57, skrev Joel Halpern:
> You highlight one of many open questions about what a P-flag would 
> mean.  Which strongly suggests that deferring adding it until we have a 
> working group draft on PSD, which can add it, would be sensible.  And 
> you have not responded meaningfully to my earlier concern that ther ei 
> sno benefit to assigning the bit isntead of reserving it, as the draft 
> currently does.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Joel
> 
> On 10/2/2024 6:01 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Zafar and Tianran,
>>
>> I certainly think that we should have the p-flag re-inserted.
>>
>> The problematic part is that we can't guarantee that the MNA Post- 
>> Stack header directly after the LSE with the BoS set. There might be 
>> some CW there and we need to be able (one way or another) to tell 
>> where the MNA Post-stack header starts. OpCode + offset? That is by 
>> definition ISD, so we need to think a bit about how we specify this.
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>
>>
>> Den 01/10/2024 kl. 18:37, skrev Zafar Ali (zali):
>>> Dear chairs and the WG,
>>>
>>> I agree with Tianran.
>>>
>>> I am also concerned about lack of implementation experience and 
>>> interoperability for a data plane change addressing a subset of the 
>>> MNA architecture.
>>>
>>> These are hardware changes that are not proven or demonstrated in the 
>>> field, yet.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Regards … Zafar
>>>
>>> *From: *Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]>
>>> *Date: *Monday, September 30, 2024 at 8:08 PM
>>> *To: *Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
>>> *Cc: *mpls <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject: *[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna- 
>>> hdr (2nd WG call)
>>>
>>> Looking at the use case draft, PSD can address all use cases and 
>>> future proof. In this sense, there is no need to implement ISD at all.
>>>
>>> I also started a thread in the working group mailing list to 
>>> investigate the operators requirements. I only got one requirement on 
>>> noffrr. There’s rare interest on existing MNA.
>>>
>>> I can’t believe we are going to publish such paper work in a hurry.
>>>
>>> Tianran
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from WeLink
>>>
>>> *发**件人： *Joel Halpern<[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>
>>> *收件人： *Tianran Zhou<[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>
>>> *抄送： *mpls<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>
>>> *主**题**： *Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf- 
>>> mpls- mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>>>
>>> *时间**： *2024-09-30 10:40:20
>>>
>>> Given that the PSD proposal on the table requires the ISD draft, and 
>>> does not require any changes to the ISD draft, I do not understand 
>>> your comments.  You have said you do not want any ISD solution, and 
>>> now you are suggesting we adopt a PSD solution that requires ISD?
>>>
>>> And it is not clear that we need a PSD solution at all.
>>>
>>> If we need a PSD solution, I expect with some clarifications and 
>>> modifications the jags psd draft can serve as a basis for further 
>>> work.  I would strongly prefer to get the ISD work done.  Then we can 
>>> have the debate about whethere we need PSD, and then discuss what a 
>>> solution should look like.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> On 9/29/2024 10:16 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
>>>
>>>     Then why not adopting that PSD proposal as the base for discussion?
>>>     And find out how it will require the draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr.
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Tianran
>>>
>>>     *From:*Joel Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>>>     *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 9:43 AM
>>>     *To:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     *Cc:* mpls <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-
>>>     mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>>>
>>>     So we should hold up the ISD draft for some proposal to appear?  The
>>>     one PSD proposal we have on the table does not require any changes
>>>     to the mna-hdr ISD draft.    That seems to request arbitrary delay
>>>     from the WG without justification.
>>>
>>>     Yours,
>>>
>>>     Joel
>>>
>>>     On 9/29/2024 9:36 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
>>>
>>>         So the next step for the WG is to work out the PSD and see how
>>>         ISD and PSD can complement and be compatible.
>>>
>>>         It’s not the time to finalize draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr in hurry.
>>>
>>>         Especially when there is no hands on implementation.
>>>
>>>         Tianran
>>>
>>>         *From:*Joel Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]
>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>>>         *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 9:06 AM
>>>         *To:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         *Cc:* mpls <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-
>>>         mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>>>
>>>         If someone wants to put a proposal on the table for PSD that
>>>         does not require ISD, they can do so.  And the WG can, if the
>>>         process moves that far, consider that solution.  But, by
>>>         definition, if the solution does not use ISD then it has no
>>>         impact on advancing the mna-hdr draft solution for those cases
>>>         which use ISD.  I still do not see the coupling you are 
>>> asserting.
>>>
>>>         In particular, while the requirements permit such a solution,
>>>         they do not mandate it.  Since we do not even have a proposal
>>>         for how to do PSD without ISD, it seems really confusing to be
>>>         objecting to advancing the mna-hdr draft on such a basis.
>>>
>>>         Yours,
>>>
>>>         Joel
>>>
>>>         On 9/29/2024 8:43 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
>>>
>>>             Hi Greg,
>>>
>>>             Please see below:
>>>
>>>                 5.   Subject to the constraints in these requirements, a
>>>             Network
>>>
>>>                      Action solution MAY carry MNA information in-stack,
>>>             post-stack,
>>>
>>>                      or both in-stack and post-stack.
>>>
>>>                 6.   Solution specifications MUST NOT require an
>>>             implementation to
>>>
>>>                      support in-stack ancillary data, unless the
>>>             implementation
>>>
>>>                      chooses to support an NA that uses in-stack
>>>             ancillary data.
>>>
>>>             Tianran
>>>
>>>             *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>>>             *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 8:24 AM
>>>             *To:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>             *Cc:* Tony Li <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>             Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>             mpls <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>; mpls-chairs
>>>             <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>; draft-
>>>             [e-mail] <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-mna-
>>>             [e-mail]>
>>>             *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-
>>>             ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>>>
>>>             Hi Tianran,
>>>
>>>             Please point me to the part of RFC 9613 <https://
>>>             datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9613/> that supports your 
>>> request.
>>>
>>>             Regards,
>>>
>>>             Greg
>>>
>>>             On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 4:44 PM Tianran Zhou
>>>             <zhoutianran=[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                 The IPR poll for the two document did not hit the point.
>>>
>>>                 The point is how can the MNA mechanism disable the ISD
>>>                 and use PSD only.
>>>
>>>                 The draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr need to resolve this.
>>>
>>>                 Tianran
>>>
>>>                 *From:*Tony Li [mailto:[e-mail]
>>>                 <mailto:[e-mail]>] *On Behalf Of *Tony Li
>>>                 *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2024 12:13 AM
>>>                 *To:* Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]
>>>                 <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>                 *Cc:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]
>>>                 <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy)
>>>                 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>                 Tarek Saad <[e-mail]
>>>                 <mailto:[e-mail]>>; mpls <[e-mail]
>>>                 <mailto:[e-mail]>>; mpls-chairs <mpls-
>>>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; draft-
>>>                 [e-mail] <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-mna-
>>>                 [e-mail]>
>>>                 *Subject:* Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-
>>>                 mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
>>>
>>>                 Hi Zafar,
>>>
>>>                     I am aware of the thread but all we hear is that
>>>                     chairs are discussing the responses and will share
>>>                     further update, “interest” vs. “consensus” debate,
>>>                     the chairs are discussing how to initiate the PSD
>>>                     debate, etc. There were 65 emails on the original
>>>                     PSD poll. I am not sure why we need another round of
>>>                     debate and what will be the nature of that debate.
>>>                     Why not just start WG adoption call and gauge the WG
>>>                     “consensus”.
>>>
>>>                 That’s exactly what we’re doing. The process for doing
>>>                 this begins with an IPR poll.
>>>
>>>                 Nic started the IPR poll on draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex and
>>>                 draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-dex on Sept 3.
>>>
>>>                 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/
>>>                 XU3Ycij6Oq2kGWi14k3eXmpdQvM/ <https://
>>>                 mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/
>>>                 XU3Ycij6Oq2kGWi14k3eXmpdQvM/>
>>>
>>>                 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/
>>>                 mpls/7NmJqyMHDairPxEn7PGxz99KNiI/ <https://
>>>                 mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/
>>>                 mpls/7NmJqyMHDairPxEn7PGxz99KNiI/>
>>>
>>>                 Tony
>>>
>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>                 mpls mailing list -- [e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>                 To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>>                 <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>             mpls mailing list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>             To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>

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