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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

… but I support Loa’s point that we should keep the p bit in some format so that it does not get accidentally eaten by some other update to the draft or revision to the protocol.

Stewart

> On 1 Oct 2024, at 15:24, John Drake <je_drake=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Loa,
> 
> My apologies.  I think I heard it from one of the authors of the subject draft, but basically the source is lost in the mists of time.
> 
> John
> 
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 07:00:18 AM PDT, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> Nope! That is something you made up.
> 
> The WGAP on the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr was started 2023-01-31 and 
> closed 2023-03-01.
> 
> The recommendation was two split the document intwo, one for ISD and one 
> for PSD, where the wg chairs call was that we had enough support for 
> adopting the ISD document as a working group document, while the PSD 
> document needed more work.
> 
> Nothing was said about removing anything, p-flags or something else.
> 
> The draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr was posted 2023-03-02, with the p-flag in 
> place. The wg chairs approved this version.
> 
> The p-flag was removed in later versioons, and I was (mildly) opposed.
> 
> SO far from telling the authors (as chair) to remove the the flag, my 
> individual position was and still is that it should be kept, until we 
> understood the implications.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> Den 30/09/2024 kl. 15:53, skrev John Drake:
> > Jie,
> > 
> > Actually, the subject draft had a PSD indicator and Loa told them to 
> > take it out.  This is actually normal, since as you point out, we don't 
> > know if we actually need PSD.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > On Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 08:46:46 PM PDT, Dongjie (Jimmy) 
> > <jie.dong=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Joel,
> > 
> > Having some fields defined as reserved is to leave room for future 
> > functions which currently we don’t have in mind.
> > 
> > In this case, according to the MNA framework and the recent poll on IOAM 
> > and PSD, it is clear that PSD is in the scope of MNA, and using one bit 
> > flag as the indicator for PSD is one candidate approach currently under 
> > discussion, which can have impact to the encoding of the NAS. It is 
> > better to finalize the discussion about the PSD indication, then make 
> > necessary changes to draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr accordingly.
> > 
> > IMO making a bit reserved first then updating its semantic very soon is 
> > not good for standardization nor implementation.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Jie
> > 
> > *From:*Joel Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > *Sent:* Sunday, September 29, 2024 10:12 PM
> > *To:* Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=[e-mail]>; Tony Li 
> > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > *Cc:* mpls <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > *Subject:* [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr 
> > (2nd WG call)
> > 
> > I fail to see the coupling you are asserting.  We can happily define the 
> > reserved bit in the ISD RFC.  And then, if the WG adopts a PSD draft, it 
> > can define that bit to have specific meaning, if the solution needs 
> > that.  We do this all the time in lots of our protocols.  That is in 
> > fact why we define reserved bits.  Any solution implementing PSD will 
> > know about that bit and its meaning.  The fact that some ISD solutions 
> > that do not support PSD do not know aobut the bit does not cause any 
> > difficulty.  The PSD solution already needs to deal with requiring that 
> > the node addressed by the bottom of the stack understands PSD and will 
> > properly remove the PSD.
> > 
> > I also disagree with a number of the other objections.  I am trying to 
> > think through the clearest way to explain my disagreement.  I hope to 
> > post that within a few days.
> > 
> > Yours,
> > 
> > Joel
> > 
> > On 9/29/2024 9:55 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
> > 
> >    Hi Tony
> > 
> >    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”.
> > 
> >    For the reason many others and I mentioned, I also fail to see the
> >    rush to progress draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr, prematurely.
> > 
> >    Let’s first have the working group complete the work on PSD and all
> >    the pieces and gain implementation maturity.
> > 
> >    Thanks
> > 
> >    Regards … Zafar
> > 
> >    *From: *Tony Li <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >    <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of Tony Li
> >    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >    *Date: *Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 2:00 AM
> >    *To: *Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >    *Cc: *Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]>
> >    <mailto:zhoutianran=[e-mail]>, Dongjie (Jimmy)
> >    <jie.dong=[e-mail]>
> >    <mailto:jie.dong=[e-mail]>, Tarek Saad
> >    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]>, mpls
> >    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]>, mpls-chairs <mpls-
> >    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]>, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-
> >    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> <draft-ietf-
> >    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >    *Subject: *Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
> >    (2nd WG call)
> > 
> >    [WG chair hat: on]
> > 
> >    Hi Zafar,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >        On Sep 28, 2024, at 10:22 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) - zali at
> >        cisco.com <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >        <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> >        There was a rather encrypted WG poll on PSD interest which shows
> >        clear support from vendors and operators to work on the PSD option.
> > 
> >        However, the working group has not heard any outcome of the poll.
> > 
> >    Tarek posted the outcome of the poll on August 14th: https://
> >    mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/qHBCt-X17u_VLIbuJuuS22C-ru8/
> >    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/qHBCt-X17u_VLIbuJuuS22C-
> >    ru8/>
> > 
> >    There were several subsequent comments on that thread that were also
> >    relevant.
> > 
> >    T
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    _______________________________________________
> > 
> >    mpls mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > 
> >    To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:mpls-
> >    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:mpls- 
> > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> -- 
> Loa Andersson
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]