Re: [mpls] Poll 1: ISD and PSD in the MNA Framework

Hi Loa and the WG,

In theory, ISD is possible.
However, from current use cases and potential solutions, I do not see the need for ISD. 
That said, I think PSD is what we should consider in the framework.
Existing MPLS framework worked well without both ISD and PSD for many years. Now we evolve the framework to support the proposed use cases.
Similarly, we do not need an omnipotent framework again.
I think the framework should only include PSD.

Cheers,
Tianran

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Loa Andersson
发送时间: 2022年5月31日 5:21
收件人: mpls@ietf.org
抄送: mpls-chairs@ietf.org; DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>; pals-chairs@ietf.org
主题: [mpls] Poll 1: ISD and PSD in the MNA Framework

MPLS working group and and the Open MPLS DT,

The working group chairs believe the current situation is:

The Framework document must be solution independent and say:

a packet may carry Ancillary Data using one or both of the following
methods:

    (1) in-stack, and

    (2) post-stack.

It is up to the document specifying the Network Action to specify which method is to be used for which Ancillary Data.

Note, a Network Action may not require inclusion of Ancillary Data.

Is this the consensus of the working group? 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