[mpls] 答复: Re: 答复: Working Group Adoption Poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Greg:

 

As you said, would you like to clarify that how the proposal in this draft “elaborate on how use of MNA enables more efficient realization compared to other methods.”, when compared with the existing entropy label that defined in RFC6790?

 

And, in this draft, the author state clearly that “This document adds an alternative encoding that may be more efficient if other MNA actions are in use.”, that is to say, there is no distinct advantage when using it independently for entropy action.

 

My attitude is that we should postpone the adoption of this draft, and focus the WG’s energy on other key use cases, for example that listed in  draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases/> . 

 

There is already the implementation and deployment of RFC 6790, and they can coexist with MNA based solutions(for other scenarios), why devote the energy to this standardization that has trivial influence of the overall network operation performance?

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

发件人: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2024年10月12日 4:42
收件人: Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
抄送: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
主题: Re: [mpls] Re: 答复: Working Group Adoption Poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy

 

Hi Aijun,

could you please clarify which criteria you consider when determining whether a particular case is "the key use case for the MNA based solution"? 

In the course of the WG discussion of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases/> , as I understand it, it was agreed to progress the draft with current content while new cases that use MNA would elaborate on how use of MNA enables more efficient realization compared to other methods. In my opinion, this draft is useful for cases that also use MNA solution, e.g., Network Resource Partition Selector (which is listed in draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases/> ).

 

Regards,

Greg

 

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 7:07 AM Aijun Wang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

Hi, Joel:

 

What’s my main concern is that the entropy function is not the key use case for the MNA based solution, there is also no any mention of such use case in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-15.

 

What’s the reason to adopt such MNA -based solution for one non-killer application(also not indispensable) to encourage the industry to implement, deployment of the new MNA based forward plane?

 

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom





On Oct 11, 2024, at 21:38, Joel Halpern <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

 

It sounds like you consider that the use cases draft, which the working group approved for publication, is insufficient.  If so, it would have seemed appropriate for you to raise the objection in the WG to that draft.  I don't recall you doing so.  Did I miss it?

Yours,

Joel

On 10/11/2024 4:34 AM, Aijun Wang wrote:

Hi, Nic and WG:

 

Although this draft provide one solution to implement the entropy function, it is not the necessary and killer application for the MNA based solution.

If there is no other prominent function for MNA based architecture, what’s the reason to design the new architecture?

 

I would like the WG to focus firstly other prominent(if exists) functions that can utilize/exploit the flexibility of MNA based architecture.

>From the POV of the operator, there is no impetus to put forward such new knob for the existing function(also considering the existing MPLS entropy label can fulfill its task perfectly)

 

I suggest the WG to stop adopt it as the WG document, and devote more energies to others fascinate proposals.

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

发件人: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
发送时间: 2024年10月1日 22:04
收件人: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
抄送: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
主题: [mpls] Working Group Adoption Poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy

 

Dear WG,

 

This email starts a two-week poll on adopting draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy as a MPLS working group document.

 

Please send your comments (support/not support) to the MPLS working group mailing list ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ). 

Please give a technical motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that the document 

should not be adopted as a working group document.

 

Currently, there are no IPR disclosure against this document. All the authors/contributors have stated on 

the MPLS WG mailing list that they are unaware of any undisclosed IPRs that relates to this document.

 

This working group adoption poll ends October 16, 2024.

 

Regards,

 

Nic (as MPLS WG co-chair)

 

_______________________________________________
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 to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>