Re: [mpls] Statement on the recurring ISD discussions disrupting MNA and Open DT meetings

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nic,

I support this statement and the decision on "Poll 1" of "Consensus call on the MNA Polls of May 30 2022".

Regarding the use of ISD or PSD for specific network action, you've mentioned that constructive discussion is needed, and the motivation for the choice should be given.  Hopefully this could guide the discussion about the network actions in the open DT and WG.

Best regards,
Jie

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 2:26 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [mpls] Statement on the recurring ISD discussions disrupting MNA and Open DT meetings


Open DT and Working Groups,



The MNA co-chairs have received feedback that a continued discussion on

whether or not allowing ISD in MNA is disruptive, both for the MNA as such

and for the Open DT meetings where these discussions occur.



The MNA co-chairs agree that the discussion on whether we can use ISD in

MNA is concluded. ISD can be used. This was decided based on "Poll 1" - see

email "Consensus call on the MNA Polls of May 30 2022" sent June 16, 2022.



We also have groups of Network Actions, e.g. addressing one use case, such

as IOAM or Network Slice, where ISD may be used. We have no need to

continue to discuss this matter.



However, when specifying any MNA network action, it would be constructive

to discuss whether PSD, ISD and/or NOD should be used carry ancillary data.

A motivation for the choice that is made should be given.



Sometimes the discussion on ISD or not ISD, have been a bit heated, please

perform this type of discussions in a professional manner.



Nic for the MNA co-chairs