Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt

Hi Haoyu,
can you point out which function of IOAM-DEX the IOAM-DEX-MNA cannot
support? And I will encourage use of the full name for the proposed
solution - IOAM-DEX-MNA, not IOAM-DEX.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 17:13 Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Anything that changes the format specified in RFC9326 can’t be called IOAM
> DEX. So please change the name to avoid confusion. I’m not against ISD OAM
> solutions, but we need be careful on the terms to be used.
>
>
>
> For the postcard mode and passport mode, we already know the advantages
> and drawbacks of each. Based on this, it’s a hard call to simply disable
> one and only support the other. We should keep the option open to users, or
> at least, we should get the feedbacks from the operators first.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2023 3:41 PM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
> *Cc:* Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <
> matthew.bocci@nokia.com>; mpls@ietf.org; i-d-announce@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
> I believe that the value of IOAM, as an example of on-path OAM, has been
> recognized and well acknowledged. But it is important to separate the
> benefits of IOAM to produce operational state and telemetry information
> from how that information may be transported for the processing. As Rakesh
> has pointed out during the joint meeting, Incremental Trace Option is
> outside the scope already. To me, that is the demonstration of a pragmatic
> approach to applying IOAM in an MPLS network. Next, if we compare
> Pre-allocated and Edge-to-Edge with the Direct Export, I don't see any gap
> in the ability to collect operational state and telemetry information.
> Hence, I conclude that functionally IOAM-DEX is on par with Pre-allocated
> and E2E trace options. Also, as I've noted in the presentation, IOAM-DEX
> allows for more accurate measurement of transit delay (residence time).
> Hence, it seems only practical supporting only IOAM-DEX in an MPLS network
> to use as an on-path OAM tool (of course, the Alternate Marking method is
> an interesting and useful mechanism that should be discussed). And IOAM-DEX
> can adequately supported based on the WG-adopted draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr.
> Hence, I cannot find anything supporting the need for PSD in MNA as far as
> IOAM in MPLS is concerned.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 12:06 PM Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think we should keep PSD. There are already use cases for PSD
> documented. IOAM Trace has its own merits even though alternatives exist
> (otherwise we shouldn’t have it standardized at the first place).
>
> Also, I believe MNA should be flexible and forwarding looking. MNA is a
> big change to MPLS so it’s critical to make it right. If we leave it now it
> would be costly to add it in the future. If we have the mechanism supported
> now, whether use it or not will become a business choice.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Joel Halpern
> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2023 8:55 PM
> *To:* Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>; mpls@ietf.org;
> i-d-announce@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt
>
>
>
> I don't want to hold up the requirements document.  But....
>
> The document does not currently justify the requirement for post-stack
> data, in terms of the inherent tradeoff between value and complexity.  I
> wonder if the discussion of PSD should be removed from the document
> entirely, leaving it for further WG discussion.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
> On 3/27/2023 6:25 AM, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) wrote:
>
> WG,
>
>
>
> I have just posted an updated version of the MNA requirements draft. There
> are very few changes in this draft.
>
>    1. Clearly identified the editor, per the request from the MPLS WG
>    chairs.
>    2. Cleaned up a few editor’s notes.
>    3. Added a minor clarification to the wording of Section 3.4 Paragraph
>    8: location of post stack ancillary data->location of any post stack
>    ancillary data).
>
>
>
> The authors reviewed the text and did not find any other significant
> issues that might not be in line with the outcome of recent WG adoption
> polls, but please let us know if you see anything of concern.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of
> internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> *Date: *Monday, 27 March 2023 at 11:14
> *To: *i-d-announce@ietf.org <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
> <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org> <mpls@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt
>
>
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking
> links or opening attachments. See http://nok.it/ext
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnok.it%2Fext&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C19993226cc6f49cccbc708db2f577911%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155824986844565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pKfG4E9D7o9RLY1hCJV35FB1pjmkwlPWa5phKK2O34M%3D&reserved=0>
> for additional information.
>
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label
> Switching (MPLS) WG of the IETF.
>
>    Title           : Requirements for MPLS Network Actions
>    Authors         : Matthew Bocci
>                      Stewart Bryant
>                      John Drake
>    Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05.txt
>    Pages           : 12
>    Date            : 2023-03-27
>
> Abstract:
>    This document specifies requirements for MPLS network actions which
>    affect the forwarding or other processing of MPLS packets.  These
>    requirements are derived from a number of proposals for additions to
>    the MPLS label stack to allow forwarding or other processing
>    decisions to be made, either by a transit or terminating LSR (i.e.
>    the LER).
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements/
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements%2F&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C19993226cc6f49cccbc708db2f577911%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155824986844565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YJcsDzMqM8141noEI0SBwYy%2Byn8rK%2BKbqVnXw33blTE%3D&reserved=0>
>
> There is also an htmlized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C19993226cc6f49cccbc708db2f577911%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155824986844565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yw4ls9VSXUjSWQwo59aH0VuaJ3q0ISjUDckTdop5KUU%3D&reserved=0>
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fiddiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-05&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C19993226cc6f49cccbc708db2f577911%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155824986844565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Kl6wnf7hZDmYwF6mbtHgM9zMkUVakeZfvnnOX4U6F3E%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org:
> :internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7C19993226cc6f49cccbc708db2f577911%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155824986844565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fbx5fL5boqEwbBHc9AadYl153G5qL97qX2bFfHPssrc%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%7C19993226cc6f49cccbc708db2f577911%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155824986844565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fbx5fL5boqEwbBHc9AadYl153G5qL97qX2bFfHPssrc%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%7C19993226cc6f49cccbc708db2f577911%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638155824986844565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fbx5fL5boqEwbBHc9AadYl153G5qL97qX2bFfHPssrc%3D&reserved=0>
>
>